The court held that general allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes, without specific involvement, may be quashed to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

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

2. Present petition is being filed by the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order dated 09.01.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 498 (A) and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against petitioners in connection with Siwan Mahila P.S case no. 34 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M, Siwan.

3. That the prosecution story in short is that the O.P. No. 2 solemnized marriage with one Prabhat Kumar, S/o late Phulena Prasad on 7.12.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After some time of marriage the husband of O.P. No. 2 demanded vehicle and money and after being refused her husband namely, Prabhat Kumar assaulted her, resulting fracture of her wrist and finally took the child in his custody.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegation appears very much general and omnibus against petitioners who are cousin in-laws. It is submitted that admittedly petitioners are working with district hospital and living separately having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is pointed out that husband of O.P. No. 2 is serving in bank and presently posted at Goa. It is submitted that dispute arising out of ancestral home partition issue, where the petitioners being cousin in-laws were implicated falsely with present case. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 is working as teacher in government school and currently living at Chapra.

5. 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 as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State pointed out that petitioners being cousin in-laws are residing in same house and actively participated in the occurrence.

7. It would be further apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 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 observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

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 no