General allegations against in-laws in dowry cases must be specific; vague claims risk legal abuse and quashing is warranted if details are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2/informant.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 14.09.2023 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No.415 of 2021, G.R. No.3602 of 2021, whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the marriage of O.P. No.2, namely, Priyanka Kumari was solemnized on 01.03.2020 according to Hindu Customs and Rituals with petitioner Rupesh Kumar, son of Raj Kumar Halwai, resident of village-Dayanagar Nursarai, P.S.- Nursarai, District-Nalanda. At the time of marriage, the parents of informant had given sufficient gift, which are mentioned in the FIR. The informant further alleged that Rupesh Kumar (husband), Mukesh Kumar, Kanchan Devi and Raj Kumar Halwai started torturing her mentally and physically for further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)/Five Lakh. The informant further alleged that her parents came to her matrimonial home and tried to pacify the matter but, they were adamant for realizing Rs. 5 lakh in the name of dowry saying that unless it is paid, they will not allow her to reside at the matrimonial house. It is further alleged that other relatives, namely, Pappi Devi, Mahendra Prasad Halwai and Rani Devi were also torturing for dowry. 4. With aforesaid allegation, the police registered Kawakole P.S. Cse No.415 of 2021 against the petitioner and others for which the charge-sheet was submitted on 30.12.2022 under sections 498-A read with 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. On the basis of materials available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Nawada vide impugned order dated 14.09.2023 took cognizance against the petitioners including other co-accused person.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioners are in-laws and living separately with O.P. No.2 and her husband. It is submitted that the nature of allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon O.P. No.2 appears very much general and omnibus against petitioners. It is also submitted that the allegation qua raising demand of dowry is also not specific against petitioners, who are in-laws. It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only for the reason as they are relatives of the husband of O.P. No.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel has 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

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 submitted that the petitioners are in-laws and actively participated in the occurrence but, fairly conceded that the thrust of allegation is available against husband namely, Rupesh Kumar, who is not the petitioner.

8. It would be apposite to reproduce para Nos.-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 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 partic