The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and credible allegations to sustain a criminal proceeding, and the court's cautious exercise of inherent power under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are parents-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2. They have filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) seeking quashment of FIR No. 19/2018, Police Station, Basantgarh District Udhampur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there is nothing against the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR No. 19/2018, but police has registered the case against them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that proforma- respondent No. 3-Mohd. Iqbal who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 3 and brother of petitioners No. 2 is serving in the Army and is posted in very sensitive area. In June 2018, proforma respondent came home on leave for some days and went to the house of his in-laws to bring the respondent No. 2-Mst. Maroofa Kousar to his home, where he was told that since the father of the respondent No. 2 is not at home and on his return she will be sent to the house of the petitioners. It is stated that instead of coming back to her matrimonial fold, the respondent No. 2 under a calculated move, entirely on concocted and scripted fiction story, filed a complaint against the petitioners and proforma respondent No. 3, before the Police Station, Basantgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that in the said complaint there is nothing against the petitioners and police has illegally involved them into the aforesaid offences.

5. Complainant -respondent No. 2 has filed objections.

6. In the objections, it is stated that the petitioners have filed instant petition on mis-stated and concocted facts; that complainant-respondent No. 2 stayed in the shared household and it is misstated that she went to her paternal home soon. She stayed there and was forced to work even at the time when she was not well and the proforma respondent- her husband never bothered to care about her health. The further stand taken is that complainant-respondent No. 2 has been suffering physical and mental abuse, pain, helplessness, unhappiness and anger on account of the son of petitioners No. 1 and 3 and his family.

7. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the law on the subjects. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. In the case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., AIR 2017 SC 37 it is held as under:-

“11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad [7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration [8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:-

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do