Vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient to sustain criminal charges against in-laws under dowry laws; specific evidence is required to proceed, preventing misuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard Shri Shyam Shankar Mishra (applicant no.1), who is appearing in person on behalf of both the applicants, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record on Board. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, despite notice. Vide order dated 21.10.2022, this case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against respondent no.2.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet no.37 of 2013 dated 30.06.2013 in Criminal Case No.657 of 2013 (State v. Vinay Mishra and Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra.

3. It is apposite to mention that instant application has been preferred on behalf of mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband, however, vide order dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Court, application on behalf of the husband (applicant no.3) has been rejected. For remaining applicants no.1 and 2, instant application has been entertained and interim order has been granted.

4. Facts culled out from the record are that marriage of applicant no.3 (Vinay Mishra) has been solemnized with respondent no.2 (Manisha Mishra) on 17.06.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It appears that due to matrimonial bickering between the parties, respondent no.2 has moved an application dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure-1) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. levelling allegations of harassment for demand of dowry, thrashing, cheating and criminal intimidation against her husband and in-laws with an averment that since the date of marriage husband of respondent no.2 has refused to accept her as wife. Husband and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2, therefore, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant have throughout tortured her for additional dowry. On 17.02.2011, husband, mother-in-law, father-in-aw and two other persons came at the maternal house of respondent no.2 at Agra and again demanded one four wheeler and Rs. 2 lakhs cash. While father of respondent no.2 has resisted, the present applicants have abused and man handled him. Having considered the contents of the complaint, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra has passed an order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure-2) directing the local police for registering an F.I.R., in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 27.08.2012, an F.I.R. No. NIL of 2012 under Section 4 98A, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act has been registered. The Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has filed charge sheet no.37 of 2013 dated 30.06.2013 (Annexure-5) arraigning the present applicants for offence under Section 4 98A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, with an observation that initially F.I.R. was registered as NIL of 2012, however, in pursuance of the Government Order, it was received in Mahila Thana, Agra, where it has been registered as Case Crime No.97 of 2012. Before filing of complaint dated 27.07.2012, applicant no.3 (husband) has already moved an application dated 23.05.2011 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (in brevity 'HM Act') for restitution of conjugal rights (Annexure-9). In the aforesaid application under Section 9 of HM Act, respondent no.2 has filed her reply dated 04.03.2012 (Annexure-10) denying to live with her husband. In the meantime, she has filed an application dated 18.07.2012 under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brevity 'D.V. Act'). The Investigating Officer h