The court can quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if it finds that the allegations are vague and lack specificity, and if the provisions of the IPC have been misused.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 406/2018 registered at Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Rural) for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

2. Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, on instructions from the respondent No. 6 has submitted that even though the matter has been referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center, but amicable settlement is not possible.

3. This Court, in the present petition on 27.11.2018 had passed the following order:-

"After hearing ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners & ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and considering the specific allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R., the present petition, qua petitioner No. 1 - father-in-law and petitioner No. 2 - mother-in-law of the complainant is dismissed.

However, considering the age and relationship of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, their personal appearance before the trial Court is exempted, subject to following conditions :-

"A. That the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall file an undertaking that they shall appear before the ld. trial Court at the time of framing of the charges, recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment.

B. That the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 shall further state in the undertaking that the evidence of the witnesses recorded in their absence but in the presence of their Counsel shall be binding upon them.

C. That in the undertaking, so filed they shall state that they shall appear before the ld. Court below as and when called upon to do so.

D. That upon appearance of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, before the trial Court, said Court shall accept personal bail bonds and bonds to be submitted by the sureties of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and same shall enure during the pendency of the trial."

So far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners No. 3, being unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant, has nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 3363, to contend that the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. have been misused and the complainant has extended the net too wide to implicate the petitioners No. 3 and she being unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant, has nothing to gain from the alleged demand of dowry.

Issue notice to the respondents, qua petitioner No. 3 only, for 24.01.2019.

Meanwhile, the further proceedings arising out of impugned F.I.R., qua petitioner No. 3 shall remain stayed.

To await service upon respondents, list this case on 24.01.2019."

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, except to point out general, vague and omnibus allegations against the petitioner No. 3, who is unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant, has not been able to spell any specific allegation on the part of the petitioner No. 3.

5. For the reasons stated in the order dated 27.11.2018, the present petition is accepted qua petitioner No. 3 and the impugned FIR qua her is quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings. Petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was already dismissed. Their personal appearance in terms of the order dated 27.11.2018 as already ordered shall remain exempted during the course of the trial.