ORDER :

1. This case was reserved for orders on 16.3.2021, but before order could be delivered, lockdown was clamped down by the District Collector w.e.f. 14.4.2021, consequently, this Court was also remain closed and during the continuance of lockdown followed by closure of this Court, the summer vacation stepped in w.e.f. 5.6.2021, therefore, order is being pronounced today on reopening of this Court after summer vacation.

2. The petitioners herein, who are in-laws of respondent No.2, call in question legality, validity and correctness of the FIR and chargesheet submitted against them by the jurisdictional police/respondent No.1 for commission of offence under Sections 498A read with Section 34, 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1961') in this petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with son of petitioners No.1 and 4 Mr.Rahul Pandey on 8.2.2015 and thereafter out of their wedlock they were blessed with a girl child namely Kuhu @ Anvi Pandey on 21.10.2016 and it is the case of the prosecution that thereafter the petitioners as well as husband of respondent No.2 herein namely Mr.Rahul Pandey (he is not petitioner herein) started treating her with cruelty [which compelled respondent No.2 herein to live separately from Rahul Pandey w.e.f. 27.7.2018] by demanding Rs. 1 crore or house at Jabalpur and thereafter on 7.4.2018, written complaint was submitted by respondent No.2 to Mahila Thana, Raipur, which was ultimately said to have been registered on 12.10.2018 and in between conciliation proceeding was undertaken for resolution of dispute between the parties and thereafter wheels of investigation started running and Crime No.41/2018 for the abovestated offences was registered against the petitioners and husband of respondent No.2 Mr.Rahul Pandey as stated above and accordingly, they have been chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners except husband Rahul Pandey have filed this petition seeking quashment of offences registered against them.

4. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, it is mainly pleaded that the petitioners are father-in-law, brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2 herein who have no direct connection with offence in question qua written complaint filed by respondent No.2 and her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC as main allegation has been made against husband Rahul Pandey and entire contents of the chargesheet would show that taking the contents of the FIR and consequent proceeding and chargesheet, no offences under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against them as there is only specific allegation against husband Rahul Pandey, there is omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners and ingredients of offence under Section 498A/34 of the IPC are absolutely missing. It has been further stated that it is the case of false allegation against the petitioners as husband of respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1955') for restitution of conjugal rights on 25.4.2018, in which respondent No.2 appeared on 26.6.2018 and thereafter written complaint was pressed into service on 12.10.2018 as FIR has been registered as a counterblast by the complainant to come out from the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, as such, it is a case of counterblast at the instance of respondent No.2. It has also been stated that husband of respondent No.2 Mr.Rahul Pandey and petitioners No.1 and 3 were never posted at one place together and they never lived together as father-in-law (petiti