The central legal point established in the judgment is that vague and unsubstantiated allegations, lack of specific averments, and overlapping offenses can lead to the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

J.S.Sekhon, J.

1. Madhu Sharma and Meena Sharma, petitioners, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively, of Smt. Savita Sharma have, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing first information report dated 19-1-1989 (Annexure P. 5) lodged against them by Dr. Murari Lal, father of the complainant at Police Station, City Panipat for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, on the ground, of vagueness of the allegations and on the point of jurisdiction.

2. The allegations in the first information report Annexure P. 5 are as under :-

"It is submitted that my daughter Savita Sharma, age 23 years, M.A. (English) was married according to Hindu custom on 14-12-1987 to Vikas Sharma son of late Shri B. K. Sharma, Civil Lines Ludhiana. At the time of marriage I spent about Rs. 1 lac on dowry (cash and jewellery and articles) and marriage expenses etc. My daughter left for her husbands house but Vikas Sharma, brother Anil Sharma, mother Smt. Madhu Sharma and her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Meena Sharma started taunting her and troubling her on the pretext of bringing less dowry. In this connection my daughter wrote her first letter to me on 1-4-1988. After that I received two/three more letters saying that she is being harassed for bringing more cash. On 25-8-1988 Vikas Sharma, his mother and her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) came to Panipat alongwith Savita and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for Vikass business. I told them that at the moment do not have the money. When I receive money on retirement, I shall help you in the business. But they threatened that if the money was not given right now they will not keep the girl in their house. They will trouble her and take her life. Vikas slapped my daughter on the face and threatened that they will force the girl to die. And left the girl at Panipat on 16-6-88 I, along with my brother Dr. Balram Sharma and my wife Sumitra Sharma took our daughter to their place at Ludhiana. I promised to give Rs. 50,000/- on retirement and left the girl at Ludhiana. But they continued to harass the girl for bringing more dowry. On 1-7-1988, I started getting the girls letters again saying that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brotber-in-law and husband are harassing her for getting the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. They made plan to make my daughter a mental case and kept getting her intoxicating drugs from doctors. I received many letters from the girl. On 10-9-1988 1 got the last letter from the girl saying that her life is in danger. On 14-9-1988 Savita gave it in writing to the landlord Shri G. S. Sekhon that her life is in danger. He sent this letter to me. On this I went to their house in Ludhiana with my brother. Savita was in had shape. She said that her life is in danger. Her brother-in-law, sister-in-law, mother in-law and husband harass her for bringing more money, and do not let her go out of the house. On this I got my daughter back on 18-9-1988. I asked them to return the articles and cash given in dowry. But they refused and allowed the girl to go, only with her `Mangalsutra and some clothes with me. They kept all her jewellery with themselves. You are requested that a case be registered against my daughters husband Vikas Sharma, brother-in-law Anil Sharma, mother-in-law Smt. Madhu Sharma and sister-in-law Meena Sharma and legal action be taken. I will be highly obliged. Sd/- M. L. Sharma, 18-1-1989. Medical Superintendent E.S.I. Hospital, Panipat."

3. In the return filed by the respondents, it is averred that the police and Court at Panipat had jurisdiction to investigate and try the above-referred case as hard cash amounting to Rs. 42,000/- for the purchase of scooter, T. V. and refrigerator etc. was entrusted to the accused at Panipat. On merits of the case it is maintained that the allegations are specific and that the accused failed to return stridhan of