General omnibus allegations of dowry harassment against in-laws without specific evidence or roles, despite initial exoneration, warrant quashing under CrPC Section 482 to curb abuse of process in matrimonial disputes. (24 words)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yawar Mukhtar, learned counsel for the applicants.

3. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. Even on the previous date, none was present on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Several time, the opposite party no.2 was granted time to file counter affidavit, if any, but no counter affidavit has been filed till now, except learned A.G.A.

4 Present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 7243 of 2015 ( State Versus Indrajeet Singh and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of 2014, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, Charge sheet No. 513 of 2017 dated 20.11.2027 as well as order of cognizance dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi

5. Facts in brief are that first information report under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 306, 511, 108 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, was lodged by the informant against the applicants at the police station Sigra, District Varanasi as Case Crime No. 344 of 2014 on 23.08.2014 at about 7.10 A.M. with the allegation that the applicants and the husband of daughter of the informant, namely, Aman Jot Singh Vasoor and other family members subjected her to harassment in relation to demand of dowry. The applicants also subjected her to harassment and when the victim was in Australia with her husband, the applicants were also living there in Australia. After investigation, no any material was found against the applicants to establish prima facie case, as a result, the first investigating officer closed the investigation, but on the oral instructions given by the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, investigation was handed over to some other investigating officer, who filed the charge sheet against the present applicants also and on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned trial court on 20.06.2015 and summoning order was passed by the learned court.

6. It is submitted that applicants are Saas and Sasur of the victim who were named in the first information report by the father of the victim with false allegation of demand of dowry and harassment at Varanasi and in Australia, though there was no any such incident committed by the applicants with the daughter of the informant. The daughter-in-law was living in Australia with her husband. There was matrimonial dispute between both of them that was the reason, a divorce petition was filed in Civil Court at Australia in which decree of divorce was also granted by the family Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 and relation between the husband and wife (victim) came to an end. No any injury was caused to the victim by these applicants. There are general allegations of demand of dowry and harassment with her regarding which there is no any material to support. The first investigating officer did also not find any reliable material against the applicants to establish the commission of the offence as stated in the first information report, but as per oral direction given by the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, investigation was handed over to some other investigati