Vague allegations in an FIR without specific incidents do not constitute a prima facie case for criminal proceedings under IPC sections related to cruelty and harassment.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that while admitting the matter as per order dated 18/01/2023, petition qua petitioner no.1 who is husband came to be dismissed as not pressed.

2. By this application, the petitioners no.2 to 4 who are in-laws seeks to pray for quashment of the Criminal Case No. 16844 of 2021 registered before learned Magistrate, Rajkot arising out of the chargesheet submitted pursuing to offence registered vide C. R. No. 11208001210049 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC.

3. The facts as emerging from the FIR are that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 got married as per the customs prevailing in their caste prior to six years of the lodging of the FIR. It is alleged that for the initial period they were in good terms and respondent no.1 also used to come and stay with her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that taunting were made at the hands of the petitioners and she does not know anything about cooking and computer work and thereby gave her physical and mental torture. Thus, the respondent no.1 left the matrimonial home and and ultimately the FIR came to be lodged.

4. Insofar as the petitioners no.2 to 4 are concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that they are father in law and mother in law of the victim and they have never given any harassment as averred in the FIR. He would further submit that they have not committed any cruelty as alleged in the FIR. Leaned advocate for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations mentioned in the FIR are accepted in their entirety then also it does not make out any prima facie case against the petitioners no.2 to 4 and vague allegations are made against them. By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit to allow this petition qua petitioners no.2 to 4.

5. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2.

6. Learned APP while adopting the arguments of the learned advocate for the first informant would submit that petitioners may be put to trial as the charge-sheet has been filed against them and therefore he would submit to dismiss the present petition.

7. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section 498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the FIR, this Court does not find any supporting material in regards to allegations made against the petitioners no.2 to 4 involving in the commission of offence of demand of dowry and adducing any threat of coercion. A bare reading of the FIR does not reveal that victim was beaten and given mental torture at the hands of the petitioners no.2 to 4 and therefore allegations against petitioner no.2 to 4 are not substantiate; without any corroborating piece of evidence in support of the FIR. To be noted further that general and spacious allegations are made against the petitioner no.2 to 4 but that would itself is sufficient to prove their involvement and therefore in absence of any specific incident showing their involvement in the offence in question alleging against them, this Court does not find any substance in the FIR qua petitioners no.2 to 4.

9. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [2012 (10) SCC 741], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :-

"15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a com