Legal provisions regarding allegations of domestic violence must be supported by specific evidence, as vague charges can lead to misuse of judicial processes.

ORDER : J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner seeks following relief:

“(a)YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No. I-4 of 2016 registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat at Annexure-A of this application.

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Investigating Agency that not to arrest the petitioners and further be pleased to stay subsequently proceeding arising out FIR being C.R.No. I-4/2016 registered at Adajan Police Station, Surat.

(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of the application be pleased to stay the further proceedings in connection with the FIR being registered vide C.R.No. I-4/2016 registered at Adajan Police Station, Surat.”

2. The short facts of the case are as under:

2.1 Brief facts leading to the filing of this application are that the opponent no.2 and accused no. 1 solemnized into marital relationship on 13.12.2009. It is further case that on 15.1.2010, the accused no. 1 went to Australia as he resides and work as Store Keeper at one petrol pump. The case of complainant is that no sooner the complainant came at her matrimonial home after marriage; the applicant no.2 took away the custody of ornaments as well as other valuable belonging of complainant into her custody. It is further alleged that accused no.1 gave inhuman treatment to the complainant and further do not provide money for her personal expenditure. It is further alleged that all the accused used to abuse complainant for not bringing expensive gifts/dowry and other things as agreed upon between the accused and parents of the complainant. It is further alleged that no sooner accused no.1 left the country, the applicant no.2 used to abuse the complainant for not bringing dowry demanded at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that time and again applicant no.2 cause mental torture to the complainant for petty household issues. It is further alleged that in June, 2010, the complainant went to Australia and further alleged that accused no. 1 abused and cause physical torture time and again. It is further alleged that complainant was also denied permission to visit India to meet her parent. It is further alleged that twice the accused no. 1 committed intercourse with the complainant without her consent. It is further stated that the complainant has also filed a complaint in Australia for charges of commission of rape. It is further alleged that all the accused with common intention time and again abused and cause mental torture and further alleged to give pressure to fulfill the dowry demand. Thus the aforesaid complaint is lodged against all the accused.

3. The Petitioners are the in laws of the first informant-wife. FIR is in regards to the offence under Section 498(a), 406, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. Initially when the process was served to the complainant, it came on record that she lives in Australia albeit she was represented by Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah. Later on Learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah withdrew her appearance and therefore fresh notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 which was accepted by her brother. But now there is no representation from the part of the complainant.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati appears for the petitioner and in his short submission, he submits that bare reading of the FIR does not disclose cruelty, harassment, cheating or any of the element which prima facie attracts the offence alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners are in laws of the complainant. Against them, general and Vague allegations are leveled, apart from that there are no other incident specifically stated in FIR to attract the cruelty and harassment being a chief charge in the FIR. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 , Learned Advocate Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati submits that the petitioner shou