IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations in matrimonial disputes must be specific and substantiated to avoid misuse of legal provisions, particularly against relatives of the husband under Section 498-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Applicant no.1 before this Court is husband of opposite party no.2 whereas applicants no. 2 to 8 are his close relative including some women family members.

2. Opposite party No.2 got married with applicant no.1 on 30.03.2017 and it appears that there were some matrimonial dispute between them and thereafter in the year 2022, she left her matrimonial house allegedly either on her own will or by force and went to her parental house alone without her 2 sons.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, opposite party no.2/complainant has lodged an FIR on 25.02.2023 bearing FIR No. 0045/2023 against all applicants alleging that they have committed offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and for reference relevant part of FIR is quoted below :-

4. On basis of above referred FIR, investigation was conducted and statement of complainant and other witnesses were recorded which are mentioned below :-

5. After investigation, charge sheet was filed wherein trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 28.08.2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

6. Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that it is a counterblast criminal case. Behaviour of opposite party no.2/complainant was not good and she was not ready to live along with applicant no.1 and ultimately, applicant no.1 has filed a divorce petition bearing Suit No. 2729 of 2022 on 19.10.2022 and when notice was issued on it, as a counterblast, subsequently, FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 25.02.2023 a creature of wrecking vengeance.

7. Learned counsel has further submitted that on basis of contents of statement recorded during investigation, there are omnibus allegations against applicant no.1 and his family members i.e. other applicants. There is no specific averment of commission of offences referred above and it was filed only to harass applicant no.1 and his family members including women members.

8. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by Sri Shubham Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that complainant and other witnesses have specifically stated about occurrence and on basis of their statements, all ingredients of above referred offences are made out.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraph of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as under :-

“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:

“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few— Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zan