Vague and general allegations against relatives in dowry cases can lead to quashing of proceedings, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.

ORDER :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 30.01.2019, whereby cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute amongst the parties. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no. 2, Petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law, who is very old lady aged about 66 years and the Petitioner no.3 is a married lady and Sister-in-law of the opposite party no.2 (Complainant).

3. It is further submitted that admittedly the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner no.1. However, from perusal of the complaint petition and solemn affirmation, it appears that all the allegations are general in nature and there is no specific and direct allegation against anybody. Opposite party no.2 has left the matrimonial home at her own will and when the petitioner no.1 sent a legal notice to opposite party no.2 to resume matrimonial relation, then in reply this false and fabricated case has been lodged. Learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance without considering the fact that there is no specific allegation particularly against the petitioner no.2 mother-in-law and petitioner no.3 (sister-in-law). Petitioner no.2 (mother-in-law) is very old lady and is residing separately at Kolkata while opposite party no.2 was residing at Vadodara, Gujarat with her husband and she has no concern with daily personal life of Petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. The entire allegation, as per complaint and solemn affirmation, is made at Vadodara, Gujarat. Petitioner no.3 (sister-in-law) is the married lady, whose marriage was solemnized much prior to the marriage of the complainant / opposite party no. 2 in the year 2000 and she is residing at Thane, Maharashtra. Both petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have no concerned about the matrimonial dispute of petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate is illegal without application of judicial mind. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 30.01.2019 as well as the entire criminal proceeding including the further proceeding may be quashed by allowing the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.P.P. has opposed the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and defended the impugned order.

5. Heard the parties and perused the records including the impugned order taking cognizance, complaint petition and solemn affirmation of the Opposite party no.2.

6. It appears that marriage of opposite party no.2 with petitioner no.1 is admitted and the entire allegation is against the petitioner no.1, who is residing at Vadodara, Gujarat, where opposite party no.2 went to join her matrimonial life with her husband, who used to work in O.N.G.C., while the opposite party no.2 mother-in-law resides at Kolkata and opposite party no.3 (sister-in-law) used to reside at Thane, Maharashtra. There is a general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons. There is no doubt that by making the general and vague allegation against the relatives of the husband, the opposite party no. 2 has tried to rope them in this case and continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 will amount to abuse of the process of law.

7. Hence, in view of the above discussion and reasons, the order taking cognizance dated 30.01.2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. 896/2018 including the further proceeding of the complaint case is hereby quashed, so far, it relates to the Petitioner no. 2 namely, Jharna Sarkar and Petitioner no. 3 namely, Sonali Ghosh are concerned.

8. So far Petitioner no. 1 namely, Sumanta Sarkar