The allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; general or vague allegations do not warrant criminal proceedings, protecting against misuse.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. By way of this application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against her in G.R. Case No. 1818 of 2018 arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack on the grounds inter alia some omnibus and unspecific allegations have been made against her.

2. The facts in background are that the petitioner being the elder sister of the groom is the sister-in-law of informant-bride and on 30.06.2017 the informant bride got married to the younger brother of the petitioner, but it was alleged by the informant that she was subjected to various mental and physical torture by her husband and other in-laws for demand of more dowry. Accordingly, the bride had lodged an FIR against her husband and in-laws including the petitioner before the IIC, Cuttack Mahila P.S. for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 498-A/294/ 506/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act which was registered vide Cuttack Mahila P.s. Case No. 93 dated 25.09.2018 and the matter was investigated into resulting in submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences under which cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack. Feeling aggrieved with the order taking cognizance of offences, the petitioner has approached this Court in an application U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceeding instituted against her on the grounds inter alia that no offence is made out against her and there is only some omnibus/general and unspecific allegations have been made by the informant against her.

3. In the course of hearing of CRLMC, Mr.Goutam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner is the married younger sister-in-law of the informant who has made some reckless and vague allegations against her to rope the present petitioner in this case along with husband and in-laws. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that there is in fact no allegation appearing against the petitioner in the F.I.R. except some casual reference to her name and there is a long delay in lodging of F.I.R. and there are some bald and omnibus allegations which are unspecific have been stated to be mentioned in the F.I.R. and a bare perusal of the statement of the informant and other witnesses would further unveil only omnibus allegations against the present petitioner who being a married lady resides in a separate mess than that of her parental home. It is, accordingly, submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the present proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and the same may kindly be quashed. In order to buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has cited the authorities in (i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others , (2022) 6 SCC 599 , (ii) Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another , (2010) 7 SCC 667 and (iii) Seenivasan vs. State and Another , (2019) 8 SCC 642.

4. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is not only prima facie allegations against the petitioner, but also the allegations appearing against her is specific for commission of offences whereunder cognizance of the offences has already been taken by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack. It is further submitted that when a criminal case is sought to be quashed at initial stage, it has to be demonstrated on a conspectus of record that the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of a