The court quashed the cognizance order against in-laws for general and omnibus allegations of cruelty, reinforcing the necessity for specific claims to avoid misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.

2. The present petition has been field by the petitioners for quashing of the cognizance order dated 22.03.2023 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Mohania, Kaimur in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No.113 of 2022 whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the marriage of informant was solemnized on 30.01.2015 with Chandan Pandey, son of Jaishankar Pandey, village- Phulhipad, P.S.-Sirsa Meja, District-Pryagraj with Hindu Rituals. It is further alleged that the husband of the informant is an I.I.T. Engineer with Ph.D. and demanded more dowry and informant/O.P. No.2 stated that she has given Rs. 20 lakhs in cash. It is further alleged that the husband of informant was appointed as Assistant Professor in mechanical department and residing in Q. No.5112. It is further alleged that there is a demand of Rs.15 lakhs and one Creta car. It is further alleged that Suraj Pandey @ Golu Pandey abused and beaten the informant. It is further alleged that when she went to I.I.T. campus at Jodhpur with her father and mother, the husband said her to go back with her father and mother. After some time, the husband of informant came back on 28/29.03.2022 to Banaras with his brother for B.Ed. Exam. It is further alleged that the husband of informant abused and forbidden the informant to come at Jodhpur.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is a married sister admittedly living separately, whereas petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of O.P. No.2, who is also living separately. It is pointed out that that allegation qua physical assault/cruelty as committed upon O.P. No.2 appears very much general and omnibus against both above-named petitioners. The face of FIR suggest thrust of allegation available against the husband of O.P. No.2, who is not the petitioner for the present. While concluding argument, 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 and submitted that the petitioners were implicated only out of their relations with husband of O.P. No.2, with harassing attitude.

5. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 submitted that the allegation qua cruelty is also available against petitioners. It is submitted that different enquiry witnesses have also supported the allegation during the course of enquiry.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek case (supra), which are as under:-

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern w