JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - By invoking the inherent power of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 178 of 2019 by Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha for offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as quashment of charge-sheet and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that complainant -respondent No.2 Smt. Sharmila Ahirwar submitted a written complaint at Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha on 24/10/2019 to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with one Pankaj Ahirwar on 23/06/2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after eight months of her marriage, she was being mentally and physically tortured by her husband as well as family members of her in-laws for non-fulfilment of dowry demand i.e. motorcycle and gold ornaments. Thereafter, the complainant became pregnant and a Counselling was being taken place at Family Counselling Centre, Vidisha but the matter could not be solved. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other in-laws used to torture her by mentally as well as physically. On 01/09/2019, the complainant gave birth to a child in her parental house and seventeen days after death of her newly-born child, her in-laws family did not come to bring her back to her maternal home, even after getting information. On the basis of complaint, aforesaid FIR was registered against petitioner and two others, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Matter was investigated and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge-sheet before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. Hence, this petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the registration of impugned FIR is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. There are material contradictions and omissions in the contents of the complaint as well as in the impugned FIR. There are no independent witnesses in the incident and only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is contended that as per the MLC report, no injury was found on the body of the complainant. The police station concerned is lack of territorial jurisdiction to investigate matter as no part of cause of action arose at the place where complaint or impugned FIR has been lodged. It is the duty of the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering the complaint or FIR, but the same has been lodged with mala fide intention of the complainant merely to harass and pressurize the petitioner. In absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner, it would be unjust that the relative of complainant's husband should be forced to undergo trial only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. In support of the contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Ors, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022 on 8th February, 2022 as well as the judgment passed in Dr. Virendra Kumar and Another vs. State of MP and Another , reported in 2015(1) MPLJ (Crl.) 695. It is further contended that the petitioner is mother-in-law (Mausiya Sas of complainant) and the complaint should be proceeded only against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of a woman complainant and not against anyone else. In support of the contention, the counsel for the petitioner