General allegations without specific incidents are insufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 498A IPC, necessitating more detailed evidence of harassment or cruelty.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

Vide order dated 15.7.2021, the petitioner qua petitioner No.3 stood abated. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 has placed on record death certificate of petitioner No.2 - P. Arunachalam and therefore, petition qua him stands abated. Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press present petition qua petitioner No.4 - husband. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of qua petitioner No.4 – husband.

ORAL ORDER QUA PETITIONER NO.1

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 8 of 2016 registered with Gandhinagar Mahila Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 114 of the IPC, u/s 3 and 7 of the DOWRY ACT as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in-law of the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made general allegations against the petitioner in typical fashion to enrope petitioner in the offence. It is further submitted that FIR even if taken on its face value, it could not establish offence of section 498(A) of IPC as well as u/s 3 and 7 of the DOWRY ACT . Reading questioned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that right to file FIR has been misused by complainant and it is filed to pressurize the petitioner and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.

3. Learned APP opposing plea to quash the FIR would submit that according to FIR, the petitioner were inciting husband of the complainant and it was root cause for offence alleged against the husband. In view of that, it is submitted that let trial to conduct against the petitioner to test veracity of the allegations. On this grounds, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. Even if we consider the contents of the FIR as it is, it appears that except general allegations, no specific role is attributed to the petitioner herein and therefore, continue with the proceedings of FIR against the petitioner is a futile exercise.

6. 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.

7. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so far as petitioner are concerned, role of the petitioner is found to be limited of inciting husband of the complainant. It is alleged that due to such incitement, husband of the complaint was extending physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. However, specific incidents are missing in the matter. Causal reference of the petitioner in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance.

8. 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 complaint against the husband, the inlaws, husband's brother and sister who were all the petitioner before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and r