The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be sparing and used to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. The court also highlighted the importance of not prematurely deciding cases with incomplete facts and the need to prevent the abuse of criminal proceedings.

ORDER

1. This order shall govern the disposal of these miscellaneous criminal cases as they have arisen out of the same crime number of the same police station, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. These petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of F.I.R bearing crime No.230/2023, registered at police station - Annapurnan, District - Indore, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4739/2019 pending before the trial Court.

3 . The brief facts relevant to the case are that on 05.05.2023 a merg report regarding the death of deceased Indu Tiwari was registered at Police Station Annapurna on the basis of a short postmortem report received from District Hospital, Indore. In the postmortem report doctor has opined that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on 04.05.2023. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with Gaurav Tiwari on 09.12.2013. Applicant Pradeep is father-in-law's brother (chacha sasur), applicant Shakuntala Tiwari is Aunt-in-law (chachi saas), applicant Priya @ Chinki and Rashmi @ Tina are sisters-in-law (nanand) and applicant - Abhay is the son of Aunt-in-law (bhua saas) of the deceased. Further allegation against the applicants are that they used to physically and mentally torture the deceased by assaulting and threatening her for not fulfilling their demand of dowry. On the basis of which, FIR bearing crime No.230/2023 was registered against the applicants for offence under Sections 304-B,498-A/34 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On completion of investigation in the present crime number, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore against the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants being aunt-in-law (chachi saas & Bhua saas), sister-in-laws (Nanand), brother of father-in-law (chacha sasur) are residing separately and they do not meet the deceased on daily basis. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no specific instance against the applicants regarding demand of dowry and harassment. Only general and omnibus allegations has been made against them. They have been roped in the case only on the ground of being close relative of Gaurav Tiwari, the husband of the deceased. Even if the allegations of prosecution are taken to be true at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicants. It is further submitted that the present case is a glaring example of growing tendency in the society to falsely implicate the close relatives of the husband. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr reported as 2012(10) ADJ 464 and judgment passed in the case of Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (SLP [Crl.] No.2786/2019). Under these circumstances learned counsel prays for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.230/2023 registered against the applicants and all consequential proceedings.

5. These petitions have been taken up for hearing at the initial stage and no notice has been served upon the respondent/complainant.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submitted that the prosecution case is well supported by FIR as well as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In addition to that it is also contended on behalf of the prosecution that for want of evidence if the proceedings against these applicants are quashed then the questi