The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and serious allegations in cases involving matrimonial disputes, highlighting the potential abuse of process of law when vague and non-specific allegations are made against family members.

ORDER :

1. By way of this Application, the applicants herein have prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-94 of 2019 registered at Ishanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad under Section 498(k), 323, 294(kh), 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act qua the petitioners.

B. Pending admission and final disposal of the present application the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant stay against the further proceedings arising out of the said FIR being C.R. No. I-94 of 2019 registered at Ishanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad under Section 498(k), 323, 294(kh), 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the interest of justice.

C. Grant other and further relief if it in the interest of justice.”

2. The applicants are the original accused nos. 4 and 5 in the impugned F.I.R.

3. Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants herein are residing of Mumbai. The applicant no.1 is the elder sister of accused no.1 - husband of the complainant. Ms. Mandavia, learned counsel submitted that the applicants came to Vadodara for attending the marriage function just 2 days before the marriage and returned back to Mumbai on the very next day and did not spend even a single day with the complainant. Even after marriage, the complainant herself has informed that she went to Andaman Nicobar islands for their honeymoon with the husband i.e. accused no.1. The applicants had never stayed with the complainant and hence the allegations put forth by the complainant that she was tortured are completely false with an intention to harass the applicants by bringing them in the F.I.R.

4. Ms. Mandavia, learned counsel submitted that, the complainant resided in the matrimonial home only for a short span of four months i.e. the marriage took place in January, 2019 and she went to her uncle’s house at Ishanpur in Ahmedabad in May itself.

5. Ms. Mandavia, learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicants herein in the impugned F.I.R. can be said to be vague allegations.

6. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned App, on instructions also submitted that, the allegations as alleged by the complainant in the impugned FIR at the most could be said to be harassing the complainant. However, nothing further is coming on record during the course of investigation.

7. Mr. Tejas P. Satta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 - orig. complainant does not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as learned APP appearing for the respondent- State.

8. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the following position of law :-

(a) In the case of Neelu Chopra and Anr. vs. Bharti, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, paragraphs 9 to 12 read thus :-

“(9.) In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.

(10) When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired.

Under such circumstances, it would-be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.

(11.) The High Court