The court emphasizes that in cases of matrimonial disputes, allegations against relatives must be specific to avoid misuse of IPC provisions, allowing for quashing of proceedings when such specificity is absent.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of petitioner for quashing of cognizance order dated 08.01.2024 as passed in complaint case no. 7199(C) of 2023 where cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 498(A) and 494 of Indian penal Code and 4 of D.P. Act by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate Patna.

3. Case of prosecution in brief, is that complainant has filed complaint case no. 7199 of 2023 against the accused persons alleging/stating that she solemnized marriage with co-accused, Mukesh Kumar, on 25.04.2018 according to Hindu rites and ritual. After sometime in-laws started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand/threatened her to be beaten and killed by way of strangulation. She informed about this occurrence/ threat to her parents and was treated at health Center Punpun. Aforesaid matter was compromised with intervention of police and she came back to her in-laws house. She further stated that her husband namely, Mukesh Kumar used to beat with belt and petitioner used to burn her hands by fire.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is under habit to file such type of false complaint. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 made a false complaint before the Parsa Bazar police station but after preliminary enquiry same was not registered as FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner who is brother-in-law living in own share of ancestral house. It is submitted that the petitioner married in year 2022 and working in Sachivalay and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs with O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is also submitted that the thrust of allegation qua mental and physical cruelty is available against the husband of O.P. No. 2 namely, Mukesh Kumar who alleged to solemnized his another marriage subsequent to present marriage with one Chandni Kumari. While concluding argument, it is submitted that while recording her SA on oath during enquiry, it is stated against petitioner by O.P. No. 2 that he being “devar” keeps “galat nazar” (evil eyes). It is submitted that implication of petitioner only due to relation of petitioner with O.P. No. 2. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

5. Mr. Amrendra Kumar learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submitted that matter almost compromised between O.P. No. 2 and her husband but same could not reduced in writing.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,5, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra) 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 Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further obs