General and vague allegations do not support criminal charges under dowry laws; specific claims must merit trial while protecting against misuse of legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the present petitioners for quashing of entire proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur being G.R case no. 2536 of 2019 arising out of Shamsherganj Police Station case no.298 of 2019 dated 4.12.2019 under Section 498/313/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Brief fact of the case

2. The marriage between the petitioner no.4 and Opposite Party no. 2 was on March 21, 2017 and they lived the conjugal life at their matrimonial home. The marriage was duly consummated. The Opposite Party no. 2 became pregnant and on July 23, 2017 was admitted to Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital with labour pain and she gave birth to a still born child in the hospital and was discharged on July 27, 2017. After she was discharged the parents of the Opposite Party no. 2 to the paternal house, and since then she is living at her matrimonial house. The petitioner stopped communication with Opposite Party no.2 as he and his family members were blamed for her delivery of a dead child. On October 22, 2019, the Opposite Party no.2 through her advocate sent a letter to petitioner no.4/husband for restitution of conjugal life where she did not make allegation against the petitioner no. 4 over the birth of the dead child. Therefore petitioner no. 4 did not respond.

3. On December 4, 2019, the Opposite Party no.2 lodged the complaint against all the petitioners with false and concocted stories. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet on March 17, 2020 under Section 498A/313/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners have come before this Court for quashing of the said proceeding.

Submissions

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has filed a written note of argument and the argument advanced before this Court is that there are no allegations made in the complaint to make out a case under Section 498 A, of the code and Section 3/4 of the DP Act. At the outset it is submitted that on June 13, 2019, the father of the Opposite Party no. 2 gave a declaration that she was reckless and her father gave her marriage with the petitioner no. 4, but after marriage, she used to demand money from her father, and as a result, the father of the Opposite Party no. 2 oust her as his daughter. It is further submitted that the present FIR failed to show any incident of torture meted out to the Opposite Party no. 2 by the petitioners and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and on the basis of the same, no prudent person can come to a conclusion that any offence under Section 498A has occurred.

5. It is also argued that the declaration made by the father of the Opposite Party no.2 show that she out of her own volition, demanded money from her father, and such illegal demand left her father with no other option but to oust her from his property by virtue of a notarise declaration. The Opposite Party no. 2 , being ousted from her father’s property sent a letter to the petitioners for taking her back, but as the petitioners did not give any reply to the said letter, the complainant lodge the complaint with an ulterior motive and to wreak vengeance and harassment against the petitioners. It is settled principle of law that criminal law cannot