JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order taking cognizance dated 24.05.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 9303 (C) of 2022, where learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna Sadar, Patna took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ).

3. The prosecution story as it appears from the complaint petition is that complainant was married to accused Chandan Sinha on 17.05.2019 in Patna, where dowry was given by her father for about Rs. 20 lakhs in cash and gifts worth of Rs. 5 lakhs. After a brief peaceful period, she was allegedly harassed by her in-laws and husband for not bringing a car as dowry. Complainant was verbally abused, assaulted, confined, and pressured to fulfill dowry demands. Despite accompanying her husband to Baroda, complainant was continuously abused, including physical assault and drunken behavior. Complainant got a job in Chandigarh but was forced to hand over her salary, and upon refusal, faced further violence. The harassment allegedly intensified when complainant resumed working from her matrimonial home. Her in-laws, including mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, taunted her and also, threw her laptop, and allegedly tried to set her on fire. Locals intervened and saved her. After being ousted from her matrimonial home, complainant stayed with her cousin. Her husband allegedly attacked her in a drunken state.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint, no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the reasons that petitioner no(s). 1 & 2 are brother-in-law & sister-in-law. It is submitted that petitioners are living separately and having no connection with their daily and domestic affairs. It is submitted that their implication appears due to relative of husband of O.P. No. 2 with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and misuse of provisions of Section 498 -A of Indian Penal Code. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that even from the perusal of complaint petition, the allegation qua petitioners is appearing very much general and omnibus.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083].

6. Learned APP appearing for the State while opposing the application submitted that petitioners being in-laws played active role towards alleged mental and physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by raising demand of dowry.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant 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 genu