IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish specific allegations and the duty of the criminal courts while proceeding against relatives of the victim's husband in cases of matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.

ORDER ON BOARD :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rahul Ambast, Mr. Ankur Diwan, Mr.Aman Menon and Mr.Udit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the first information report bearing crime No.175/2017, final report No.77/2018 of Police Station Dipka and entire criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.2152/2018 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba (CG) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.”

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioners No.2 & 4 are brother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2. Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 25.04.2001 and out of their wedlock, two sons namely Aryavrat and Devvrat Singh have been born. After about 16 years, on 4.8.2017 respondent No.2 lodged a written report at Police Station Dipka alleging therein that she was subjected to cruelty by her inlaws family members i.e. present petitioners.

4. On the basis of written report lodged by the complainant / respondent No.2, offences under Sections 498A and 323/34 of the IPC have been registered against the petitioners and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned JMFC, Katghora where criminal case has been registered against the petitioners and the petitioners are being prosecuted there.

5. A bare perusal of the statement as well as FIR and entire challan does not disclose about any specific instrument of dowry article as well as the entire FIR would reveal that no offence has been committed at Korba, hence the petitioners are filing this petition for quashing of entire criminal proceedings.

6. Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rahul Ambast, Mr.Ankur Diwan, Mr.Aman Menon and Mr.Udit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is bad in law, abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that in the entire charge- sheet, no specific month, date or time is mentioned, only the omnibus and vague allegations are made in the FIR and case diary statement of the complainant/respondent No.2, which does not constitute an offence under Section 498A and 323/34 of the IPC. The allegation levelled in the complaint is vague, as in the complaint the particular of offence committed by each accused and role played by them in committing offence need to be stated, therefore, continuance of criminal prosecution against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. He would also submit that for constituting of an offence, the requirement is of cruelty and the cruelty is defined under Section 498A of the IPC, according to which, any willful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to derive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or to danger to life, limb or health, which is not present in the complaint as well as in the statement and written report. He contended that where allegation made in the FIR is so absurd and inherently, improbable on the basis of which a prudent person can reach to just conclusion there is no any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. He also contended that even petitioners No.2 to 4 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law and they are living separately, therefore, there is no possibility to give ill treatment to the complainant/respondent No.2 by petitioners No.2