ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State and Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:

“(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kind enough in quashing the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, this Hon’ble Court may further be also pleased to quash the complete charge-sheet filed against the petitioners and they be set free from the criminal trial which is now proposed by the concerned Police Station. This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to stay the trial against present petitioners as they are not related directly shows in the allegation.”

Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The present petitioners namely Neetu Sharma is sister-in-law (Nanad), Smt.Janki Sharma is mother-in-law (Mousi Sas), Ramavtar is father-in-law (Dada Sasur) and Bhanchand Sharma is father-in-law (Mousa Sasur) of the complainant/respondent No. 2-Sonali Joshi (Sharma).

4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that written complaint was lodged by respondent No. 2/complainant on 30.06.2016 in Mahila Police Station, Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg in which she has named and lodged a report against the petitioners and husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that from the very beginning of the marriage, the petitioners along with main accused person were making demand of dowry and hence, she has left the house of the husband. In the written complaint, no specific overt act and allegations are made against the petitioners except the bald statement. Reconciliation proceedings were initiated by the concerned Police Station which failed and thereafter charge-sheet was filed by the concerned Police against the petitioners, husband and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2. Hence, this Cr.M.P.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have neither demanded any kind of dowry from the complainant or her family members nor mentally harassed her. The petitioners have been falsely implicated and roped in by the complainant in sheer misuse of process of law. He further submits that in written complaint filed by respondent No. 2, there is no direct allegation or connection of the present petitioners in the aforesaid offences except general and omnibus allegations having no legs to stand. He also submits that taking contents of charge-sheet and document appended along with charge-sheet as it is, aforesaid offences are not made out against the petitioners. As such, in absence of specific allegation and in absence of ingredient of demand of dowry and cruelty, prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. To bolster his submission, he would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Swapnil vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567 and Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 SCC Online SC 620 (Para-24).

6. On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State and Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material collected are sufficient to put the petitioners at trial and they are standing trial also, but taking into consideration the material available on record, it cannot be held that no prima-facie case against the petitioners for standing trial is made out. They would further submit that jurisdiction of this Court under Section