IMPORTANT POINT
Specific allegations are necessary to proceed with trial under Section 498A of IPC, and vague and omnibus allegations should not be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) by the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 637/2018 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the prayers herein are as under:

“(a) Call for records pertaining to Annexure A2 final report and quash the same against the petitioner by invoking the powers of this Hon’ble Court u/s. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(b) To issue any other order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents including the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 637/2018 is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), since the prosecution materials do not suggest any overt acts at the instance of the petitioner to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that as per the F.I. statement, the only allegation against the 2nd accused is that the 2nd accused became a spectator while the defacto complainant was persecuted at the instance of the 1st accused and she did not interfere to stop the same. Accordingly, it is submitted that the case against the 2nd accused is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a latest decision of the Apex Court reported in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2024 KHC Online 6257 : 2024 (3) KHC SN 24 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 343 : 2024 KLT Online 1481 to canvass the point that the courts must appreciate the materials and all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very intend of the marriage. Paragraph 25 of the decision has been referred to contend that some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court held as under:

“If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.”

4. Resisting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that going by the F.I statement itself, there is specific allegation against the mother/2nd accused/petitioner. That apart, in the statement of the mother of the defacto complainant, Smt. Shanthamma, it is stated that when she enquired about the details of persecution, she noticed that the mother of the son in law, Smt. Shyamala, also persecuted the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the statement of Radhakrishnan, the father of the defacto complaint, also there is allegation that the mother of the accused also subjected the defacto complaint to cruelty demanding more dowry. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the final report, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, must fail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor also reiterated the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complai