IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that vague and general allegations in matrimonial disputes, particularly against relatives of the husband, do not suffice to sustain charges under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the necessity for a prima facie case to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of an FIR No.158/2024, dated 22.06.2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506and 307 of IPC.

2. The petitioners assert that they have been made accused without any material evidence against them and without attributing any role of any kind, so as to make them criminally culpable for the purported offences mentioned in the FIR.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant -Anupriya Mittal filed a complaint at Mahila Police Station, District Bikaner, alleging that her marriage with Petitioner No. 3, Dr. Aashish Mittal, was performed on 07.12.2015 as per Hindu customs. Despite dowry given at marriage, she claimed harassment by her husband for insufficient dowry within months of marriage. They have two daughters, aged 6 and 1.5 years. Allegations include habitual alcoholism, verbal abuse and threats by her husband. A Panchayat meeting was held due to ongoing harassment by her husband and mother-in-law (Petitioner No. 1). She alleges that on 21.06.2024, she was physically assaulted by her drunken husband, prompting her to seek refuge with her family.

4. The grounds taken in the petition are as follows:

4.1 It is contended that respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home voluntarily and was not forced out, the complainant's narrative is ex facie doubtful and lacks substance.. The involvement of Fanna Babu, the complainant's uncle and Director of Bikaji Company, raises suspicion and concerns about the impartiality of the police investigation, potentially leading to harassment under the guise of inquiry. On 06.07.2024, Dr. Aashish Mittal, the complainant's husband, was abruptly arrested on charges of criminal breach of tranquility, with questionable motives evident in attempts to incarcerate him under various sections. Police actions were aimed at bullying, including the addition of Section 307 of the IPC without clear evidence of serious injuries. Petitioner No.2-Ranjana aged about 45 years residing at Sirsa (in Haryana) is the married sister of the complainant’s husband. Petitioner No. 2 received a notice on 05.07.2024 to appear before the investigating agency in Sirsa, Haryana, lacking adequate details about her current residence. The petitioners are from a respected family in Bikaner City, including a doctor and well-educated members with no prior allegations against them during nine years of marriage of petitioner No. 3 with the complainant. The FIR stems from the complainant's desire to separate from her marital home, when her escalating demands were not met by petitioner No.3. Thus, FIR in question deserves to be quashed..

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record.

6. Complainant’s marriage with petitioner No. 3, Dr. Aashish Mittal was performed on 07.12.2015. They have two daughters, aged 6 and 1.5 years. It is the complainant’s allegation that on 21.06.2024, she was physically assaulted by her drunken husband, prompting her to seek refuge with her (parental) family. In the absence of any allegations to the contrary, it seems that since marriage on 07.12.2015 till 21.06.2024, the complainant and her husband had been living together in the matrimonial home at Bikaner (Rajasthan).

7. Petitioner No. 2 Ranjana aged about 45 years residing at Sirsa (in Haryana) is the married sister of the complainant’s husband. The allegations against her are non-specific and sans any details or particulars.

8. Petitioner No.1 Uma Mittal aged About 70 years the complainant’s mother-in-law. She is a senior citizen and is stated to be a chronic heart patient.

9. In Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines/directions:-

“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise