The judgment emphasizes the requirement for specific particulars of the offense and the role played by each accused, and highlights the abuse of the process of law in registering the FIR.

1. Petitioner No.1-Rahul Sharma was married to respondent No.2-Megha Kakkar on 19.02.2007 at Jodhpur. After their marriage, they resided at Gurgaon-Haryana where they were working at IBM DAKSH, Gurgaon.

2. Respondent No.2's father, however, brought her back to Jammu finding that petitioner No.1 and his relations had treated her with cruelty. He thereafter lodged Complaint with Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu on 10.08.2010, inter alia, indicating about the dowry items that he had given to petitioner No. 1 and his family members at the time of the marriage of his daughter. Petitioner No.1-Rahul Sharma, his mother Sarita Sharma and sister Neha Sharma were accused in the Complaint of committing domestic violence against respondent No. 2.

3. Although Rahul Sharma is stated to have threatened Megha Kakkar not to come back to Haryana without money yet she was sent to the matrimonial home where she was again stated subjected to malnutrition besides mental and physical torture. This Complaint remained pending with Police but without registration of any FIR thereon. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were forced to enter into compromise in terms whereof marriage between Rahul Sharma and Megha Kakkar was agreed to be dissolved on payment of Rs. 9.00 lac. The Compromise, however, did not mature and thereafter respondent No. 2 again approached the Police Station for registration of FIR against the petitioners. The Police having not obliged the respondent, she approached a Criminal Court at Jammu with fresh Complaint on which FIR No. 3/2011 was registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu, under Sections 498-A/109 RFC.

4. The Complaint, on the basis whereof FIR was registered, impleads Rahul Sharma, his mother Sarita Sharma, Sister Neha Sharma and Lt. Col. K.K. Sharma, the maternal uncle of Rahul Sharma, as accused. It is indicated in the respondent's Complaint that when the accused came to Jammu they demanded one Car of City Honda Make threatening that in case their demand was not met, the complainant would be eliminated.

5. Petitioner No.1-Rahul Sharma, the husband and petitioner No.2-Sarita Sharma, his mother, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered on respondent No. 2's Complaint.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records.

7. Perusal of the Complaint filed by Megha Kakkar on the basis whereof FIR was registered does not refer to any date, month or year when the complainant is stated harassed or maltreated. The manner in which she was maltreated, harassed or treated with cruelty too is missing from the Complaint. Not only that, the role played by each person accused of maltreating her, either individually or collec#31;tively, too is not there in the Complaint.

8. The Complaint, in short, raises general and vague allegations of maltreat#31;ment, harassment and domestic violence, without indicating the date, month or year of such alleged incidence(s) still less detailed account thereof.

9. Putting of Criminal Law into motion on such vague Complaint would certainly be abuse of the process of law, in that, no prosecution, in the ordinary course of things, may succeed on the basis of such type of Complaints shorn of necessary details and indicating existence of ingredients constituting penal of#31;fences.

10. This apart, the second Complaint on the basis whereof the FIR was registered under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though pursuant to the orders of the learned Magistrate, is materially different from the initial Complaint that was lodged by the complainants father in Women Cell, Jammu and pursuant where to an Agreement is stated to have been reached at between the two families. There is not even a whisper in the first Complaint about petitioners or any of their family members demanding Honda City Car when they came to Jammu on May 05,2010. The event of May 05,2010, ex facie appears to have been coined and introduced only to justify the maintainability of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document