The main legal point established is that vague and omnibus allegations without specific details or evidence do not disclose an offence, justifying the quashing of proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.- Petitioners have filed this petition u/S 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.16 of 2021, registered at Police Station Joura, District Morena for offence u/S. 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated in connection with RCT No.77/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Joura, Morena.

2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that the respondent No.2 lodged an oral complaint at police station Joura alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with Awadhesh Sharma on 10th July, 2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Gopalpura. At the time of marriage, her father had given sufficient dowry as per status. After marriage, her husband Awadhesh Sharma (herein petitioner No.3), mother-in-law Meera Sharma (herein petitioner No.2), father-in-law Ramkumar Sharma (herein petitioner No.1), brother-in-law (jeth) Hridesh Sharma (herein petitioner No.4), sister-in-law (jethani) Smt. Aarti Sharma (herein petitioner No.5) started demanding dowry of four wheeler. On that, she told that her father is a very poor person and is not able to fulfil the said demand. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment with regard to demand of four wheeler and "marpeet" was committed with her and on 01/08/2020, her in-laws dropped her at Joura Bus-stand and since then, she is living in her parental house. On the basis of oral complaint made by respondent No.2 -complainant, a case was registered vide Crime No.16/2021 at PS Joura and after completion of investigation and other formalities, the police filed charge-sheet against petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court of JMFC took cognizance of said offence and proceedings were initiated in connection with RCT No.77/2021 pending before the said Court. Being aggrieved, present petition has been preferred.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that even if the entire facts mentioned in the impugned FIR taken into consideration in its entirety, then prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law, the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further contended that the entire prosecution story as per FIR is doubtful and on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, petitioners have been falsely implicated and prima facie, no case is made out against them. From the statements of complainant recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, it reflects that the spresent FIR is being of false implication in order to pressurizing the petitioners. It is further contended that there is delay of more than four months in lodging the FIR. Soon after marriage, petitioner No.1, 2 and 4 are living separately and there was a partition deed executed between sons of petitioners No.1 and 2 vide notification of memorandum in the daily newspaper on 04/11/2019 and since then, both the sons were living separately. It is the ill-will of complainant in order to grab the property and pecuniary benefit from her father-in-law and mother-in-law. After partition, the complainant did not return back to her in-laws house and preferred an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court and while deciding the said application, the statements of complainant were recorded and a compromise application was filed to settle the dispute and due to failure of reconciliation proceedings, the husband of complainant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. Notices were issued by various modes even by electronic mode but in order to avoid the same, the present counterblast FIR has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive for pressurizing the petitioners wherein, there is no specific allegation against them for commission of a