JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent and Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, these two petitions are taken up together for final disposal together in asmuch as both the petitions are filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging FIR dated 16.11.2018 registered as Noonmati P.S. Case No.700/2018 lodged by the informant respondent No. 2 u/s 498-A/323 /327 /384 /400/506 IPC.

3. The petition No. 1227 is filed by the four petitioners, who are father-in- law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/informant and the petitioner in Petition No.1230 is the husband of the respondent No.2.

4. One of the basic grounds on which the FIR is assailed is that the Noonmati Police Station is not having jurisdiction to register such FIR. However, such ground is not being argued by Mr. D. Das learned Senior Counsel, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down in Ms. Rupali Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 wherein it has been held that FIR can be registered for commission of offence u/s 498(A), at the place, where the victim has taken shelter. Therefore what remains for this court is to consider whether this is a fit case for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the allegation levelled in the FIR.

5. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel in support of quashing of the FIR dated 16.11.2018 urges the following points:

(i) On perusal of the allegations of the FIR, it becomes clear that the same is bereft of any ingredients to constitute offence, under Sections 498(A) /323 /327/384/406/506 IPC.

(ii) Mere mentioning of relevant Sections and language of those Sections is not sufficient to bring the criminal law into motion. Particulars of offence committed by each of the accused person and role played by them in committing that offence need to be specifically mentioned in the FIR. In the instant case there is no specific allegation leveled against the petitioners herein, in other words, even if the allegation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners herein.

(iii) It is trite in law that where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence the same is liable to be quashed. In the instant case the facts disclosed in the complaint do not make out any contravention of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and as such no offence is made out.

(iv) The present proceeding is vexatious and harassive in nature. A completely false implication by way of general omnibus statement made in the course of matrimonial dispute and thus the continuation of the proceedings would be misuse of the process of law.

(v) There is not a single whisper of allegation in the First Information Report against the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 1227 herein for commission of offence under Sections 323/327/384/406 /506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR arising out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation.

(vi) The continuation of the instant proceeding any further than the stage it has already reached will be a gross abuse of the process of court as the allegations when taken in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners.

(vii) Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias sonam Vs State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the learned Senior Counsel argues that the present is a case where the provision of Section 498 A IPC has been misused by implicating the relatives of the husband of the informant and the implication of such FIR will have long time ramif