IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that vague and general allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes do not suffice to sustain charges under IPC Sections 498-A, 406, and 323, highlighting the necessity for specific evidence to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. The petitioners are a couple and, being brother-in-law and sister, respectively of the husband of complainant-wife, are implicated in FIR No. 0285/2021, dated 24.07.2021, for alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, and 323 of the IPC arising out of the matrimonial discord of complainant with her husband.

2. They have approached this Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid FIR against them, asserting that they have been made accused without any material evidence against them and, without any role attributed of the kind, so as to make them criminally culpable for the purported offenses mentioned in the FIR.

3. The relevant facts and allegations in the FIR as pleaded in the petition herein are as follows :

3.1 The complainant/respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 24.07.2021, alleging that she married the accused, Mr. Vivek Malik, on 28.11.2020, and her family gave dowry to the accused. The day after her marriage, the accused began criticizing her for not bringing enough dowry, took all her jewelry, and physically assaulted her. It is further alleged that when she and her husband moved to Manesar, her mother-in-law followed them to dictate their living. She harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. The next day, it is alleged that her mother-in-law argued with her and physically assaulted her. However, her husband intervened and promised such incidents would not happen again. On the day of Makar Sankranti, respondent No. 2 alleges that the petitioners herein came to her matrimonial home, criticized her for not bringing enough dowry. They hurled abuses at her. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 2 even pushed her and petitioner No.1 twisted her arm.

3.2 When her husband was posted to Haridwar, respondent No. 2 returned to her parental home in Suratgarh. She alleges that her mother-in-law called her parents, threatening to ruin her marriage. Following this incident, petitioner No. 1 and her husband visited respondent No. 2's parental home and assured that she would not be harassed anymore. Respondent No. 2 then returned to Manesar with her husband. Everything remained cordial for a few days until her mother-in-law returned to Manesar and yet again physically assaulted her, and harassed her for not bringing enough dowry. When respondent No. 2 shared this with her husband, he slapped her and ordered her to follow everything that his mother said. Respondent No. 2 discussed the incident with her parents, who then called Vivek Malik/husband to meet them at her uncle's residence in Gurgaon. It is alleged that when her parents tried to counsel her husband, he rigidly told them that she must follow whatever his mother said, or he wouldn't take her back. The next day, her mother-in-law allegedly called her aunt and mother, threatening to break the marriage. It is alleged by her that her husband and mother-in-law refused to return the dowry articles. Hence the FIR.

4. The petitioners had to file an anticipatory bail petition before the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Suratgarh. The same was allowed by the court on 24.08.2021. Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Misc. Application 135/2022 before the High Court on 02.05.2022, which resulted in an order on 12.05.2022 directing her husband Vivek Malik to appear before the Investigating Officer, Suratgarh, on or before 23.05.2022 to hand over the dowry articles according to the list. On 23.05.2022, Vivek Malik appeared before the Investigating Officer and returned the remaining articles.

4.1. It is stated in the petition herein that all the alleged dowry articles were thus either taken away by respondent No. 2 and her family. Most items were taken away when they first came to the NSG campus on 01.04.2021. Later, on 10.10.2021, the petitioners, along with husband Vivek Malik and mother-in-law Mrs. Manju Malik, appeared before the Investigating Officer and returned many items from the list to th