The court underscored the necessity of specific allegations in matrimonial proceedings under Section 498A IPC to prevent misuse and quashed the FIR due to a settlement between parties.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R.’) of Mahila P.S. Case No.47 of 2021 dated 04.05.2021 registered under Sections 3 4 1, 323, 498-A, 506 , 509 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘I.P.C.’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is to assault the informant along with other relative/family members due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and thus by committed cruelty upon O.P. No.2 on various occasions.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner no.2 and 3 are father and mother of the husband of O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out that petitioner no.2 and 3 are living separately having no connection with their daily and domestic affairs. It is submitted that the implication of petitioner no. 2 and 3 appears prima facie only out of the relation, being in-laws of O.P. No.2. It is also submitted that the allegation qua alleged cruelty appears very much general and omnibus against them and moreover the matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and they also decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to Matrimonial Case No. 1447 of 2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna annexed as Annexure-P/2.

5. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted that as parties settled their dispute, continuing with present criminal proceeding before the Trial Court would only amount to abuse of the process of court of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has also affirmed the factum of compromise as submitted above by learned counsel appearing for petitioners.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the Abhishek’s case (supra) which reads as under:

“13. Instances of a husband's family members 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 was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would