The court emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case against the accused and the limitations of the court's role at the stage of framing charges. It highlighted the importance of not questioning the truthfulness of prosecution's material at this stage and the need for specific allegations to establish harassment and ill-treatment in dowry-related cases.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J - The revisionists have come up with present revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of CrPC, challenging the impugned order dated 23/07/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 2529 of 2018, whereby the charges have been framed against revisionists for offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Facts giving rise to present revision, in short, are that on 20/06/2018 at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior complainant Smt. Tanu Sharma submitted a written complaint alleging therein that, she got married to Rahul Sharma, resident of Mathura (UP) on 12/12/2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Silver OAK Hotel, City Centre, Gwalior and at the time of marriage, her father had given net cash of Rs.11 lac along with other gold ornaments as per status but her in-laws were not satisfied with it and started ill-treatment with her and pressurize her to bring some more dowry. Her husband told her to bring a SUV Car, otherwise they use to beat her. It is alleged that when complainant lived with her husband in Delhi, on 25/06/2017 accused revisionists Nos.1, 2 and 4 (father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant) came to Delhi and told the complainant for calling her parents in regard to talking on the issue of dowry and her Mausa Girraj Sharma also came to Delhi, where revisionists No.1 to 4 told if the parents of complainant did not fulfil demand of Rs.5 lac and said car, they did not bring the complainant with them. After two months thereafter, the parents of complainant gave Rs.5 lac to her in-laws. It is further alleged that on one day of night at around 12 O'clock, her husband and her other in-laws left her lonely in the rented house and the complainant thereafter called her Mausa Giraj Sharma on 15/10/2017 and informed about the incident. Thereafter, the complainant along with her family members went to her in-laws house at Mathura on 18/10/2021 where her in-laws also insulted the father of complainant and turn out them out of house and in order to save their life, complainant along with her father immediately came to Gwalior and since then, complainant is residing in her parental house at Gwalior. Many times, family members of the complainant tried to settle the matter but her in-laws were not ready. Therefore, a complaint/FIR has been lodged at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior and on the basis of which, the police has registered aforesaid offences as mentioned in para 1 of this order against accused persons. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge sheet before the Court of JMFC. Being aggrieved, present revision has been filed.

3. Challenging the impugned order of framing charges as well as impugned FIR, the counsel for revisionists submitted that the Court below did not appreciate evidence and materials properly and committed grave error in framing charges against revisionists. There is no direct or indirect evidence available against revisionists but in order to harass them, the complainant has lodged a false and frivolous FIR on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. Initially, the revisionist No.1, who is father-in-law of complainant, submitted a report to SSP, Mathura stating therein that the conduct and behaviour of the complainant is not good and there is a relationship between complainant with one Nitin Gupta and when police did not take any action, he filed a private complaint before the Court of JMFC, Mathura and on the basis of counter-blast, present FIR/complaint has been lodged by complainant which is an afterthought. There is mala fide intention of complainant and prosecution launched against revisionists is clear abuse of process of law in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. It is further contended that earlier, the husband of complainant filed an