The court emphasized the importance of specific allegations in dowry harassment cases, asserting that general claims against in-laws are inadequate and warrant case quashing to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the impugned order of cognizance dated 26.07.2022 as passed in Complaint Case No.1264/2021, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X (East), Muzaffarpur, in which cognizance has been taken under Section 3 23 , 504, 498 A, of I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. That brief facts of this case speaks that marriage of the O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with one Ranjeet Kumar according to Hindu Rites and rituals on 30.04.2015, where petitioner no. 3 demanded one motorcycle in order to proceed Barat, and on such demand Rs, 1,17,000/- was deposited in his account. It is further alleged by the complainant that at the time of her Bidai, petitioner no. 1 had demanded one car, but the same was not fulfilled and anyhow Bidai ceremony was performed. She further alleged that at the time of marriage several valuable articles such as gold, silver and cloths etc. were provided to the petitioners. She stated that after marriage, she along with her husband went to Chennai to reside there and when she came at her Maike (parental home) on the eve of Chhath Puja in the year 2015, petitioners demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- and on such refusal, they started abusing her. She stated that she was blessed with a male child in the year 2016 at Patna. She alleged that in the year 2019, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband who also made an attempt to kill her. The complainant further alleged that petitioner no. 3 had misbehaved with her and when she made a complain regarding the incident to her parents, her husband had took her to Chennai on 03.03.2021. She stated that her husband tortured her several times and due to which she was forced to commit suicide and, finally, she was ousted from her matrimonial home.

4. On the basis of allegations as raised through aforesaid complaint petition registered as Complaint Case No. 1264 of 2021, learned ACJM-X, East Muzaffarpur took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3 23 , 504, 498 A, of I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all petitioners are in-laws and facing general and omnibus allegations qua alleged cruelty. It is pointed out that the matter now stands compromised between the parties and out of compromise, O.P. No. 2 joined her matrimonial home with son of petitioner no. 1 and 2 i.e., her husband namely Ranjeet Kumar. It is pointed out that the aforesaid compromise now filed through supplementary affidavit which is available on record. It is submitted that in view of compromise, continuing of criminal proceedings against petitioners before learned trial court would only amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, to secure the ends of justice, same is fit to quashed/set aside.

6. Mr. Ramakant, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 approved the factum of compromise and also the joint compromise petition filed on affidavit as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted above that he has no objection qua prayer of petitioners in view of compromise.

7. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 , which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Co