Specific evidence and details are essential in allegations of harassment and dowry demands for justifying the continuation of legal proceedings.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 o f Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR dated 08.04.2019 bearing Crime No.68/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under Section 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 alognwith the subsequent proceedings pending before the JMFC, Indore in Case No.2494/2019.

2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent no.2 has approached the police station and lodged the FIR at Mahila Police Station, Indore by submitting that her marriage was solemnized on 04.07.2014 with son of petitioner no.1 and 2. She lived with her inlaws. and since after her marriage, she alleged that her in-laws are and her husband have harassed her and demanded Rs.10Lacs as dowry at various occasions and harassed her mentally and physically. They were taunting her and harassing her and they were constantly pressurizing her for taking dowry from her parents. Hence, the police has registered the FIR against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 and 2 are parents in law of respondent no.2/complainant and petitioner no.3 is brother in law of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the complainant come to Indore on 30.01.2019 and she has mentioned two different descriptions one at P.S. Sanyogitaganj and another at Mahila Police Station, Indore for the same incident and there are material contradictions in both the complaints. The petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present Case. The FIR, in the given facts and circumstances is having no ingredient of Section 498-A and 323 of IPC. He further submits that in the marriage of the complainant and son, parents of both the parties have born out 50-50% of the amount incurred in the marriage and this fact was mentioned in the affidavit given by father of respondent no.2 dated 05.07.2014. It is also submitted that in the list of affidavit, list of ornaments given by the parents and parents-in-law of respondent n.2 have also been given at the time of marriage. It is also submitted that the list given by respondent no.2 to the police, ornaments given by parents-in-law are also included as given by parents-in-law. It is further submitted that the period for which the allegations have been leveled, petitioner no.3 was pursuing his MDS (Orthodontics) and joined ITS Centre between 2015 to 2018. She has not made any allegations against the petitioners since last so many years. The FIR has been filed only on the basis of afterthought omnibus allegations and only with intent to harass the petitioners, there is no date and time in the FIR to establish that on which date the incident was happened. Hence, there is no ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for quashment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54 . In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 and quash the charges framed under non-compoundable offences. Taking the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is apparent that the present dispute is regarding a business matter. It is their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

5. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

6. Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs.