Specific allegations are required against in-laws in dowry harassment cases; general accusations do not justify legal proceedings under Section 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and also learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated 04.08.2021, as passed by learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 (G.R. No. 155 of 2021), whereby and whereunder learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/504/506/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other accused persons.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was performed with one Guddu Kumar on 22.02.2019, but she was tortured for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry and motorcycle. O.P. No. 2 alleged that she was blessed with one female child. It is alleged that after making pressure by her parental family, her husband arranged a rental house where mother-in-law was also residing for caring her new born baby. In the meantime, family members of husband of the O.P. No. 2 started making pressure to bring Rs. five lakhs from her parents and also taken signature of the O.P. No. 2/informant on 8-10 blank papers. The informant further alleged that her husband did not keep her in in-laws house.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written information of the informant/O.P. No. 2, the present F.I.R. being Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 has been registered for the offences punishable under sections 498(A)/504/506/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws of opposite party no. 2 and living separately with the husband of opposite party no. 2 prior to this occurrence.

6. It is further pointed that the root cause for lodging the present F.I.R. is filing of divorce case by the husband of opposite party no. 2 in the year 2020 itself. It is also submitted that all petitioners are facing general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon opposite party no. 2, and even the date of occurrence not appears specified for alleged cruelty. It is further submitted that even the local ward member has endorsed through Annexure P/4 that petitioners are living separately prior to the occurrence.

7. In view of aforesaid, implication of the petitioners with the present case is only for the reason that they are relatives/family members of the husband of opposite party no. 2. 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.

8. Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, while opposing the petition, submitted that the allegation qua raising demand of dowry for purchasing motorcycle and also for cash of Rs. 5 Lakhs to start business appears available against petitioner no. 2 namely, Pappu Kumar, who is elder brother-in-law of opposite party no. 2. It is also submitted that petitioners along with husband of opposite party no. 2 did not allow opposite party no. 2 to enter into her matrimonial house on 19.09.2020, and since then she is living with her parents.

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

“13. Instances of a husband's family members 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. P