ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition has bee`n filed by the petitioners under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.72 of 2022 dated 9.4.2022, under sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowery Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the sisters of Rajendra Agrawal (the husband of the respondent No.2/complainant Sarika Agrawal), whereas the petitioner No.3 is the uncle of Rajendra Agrawal. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Rajendra Agrawal was solemnized with the complainant Sarika Agrawal on 4.12.1999, and out of this marriage, they also have two daughters. The FIR in the present case has been lodged on 9.4.2022 under the aforesaid offences alleging demand of dowry and cruel treatment of the respondent No.2 at the hands of her husband, his mother, and the present petitioners. After the aforesaid FIR was lodged, charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is in progress.

4. Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the sister-in-laws, whereas the petitioner No.3 is the uncle of respondent No.2’s husband, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the offence as alleged by the respondent No.2, as the respondent No.2 had resided with her husband at Jaipur in Rajasthan, on the other hand, the petitioner No.1, who was married in the year 1987, is residing since then at Indore, whereas the petitioner No.2, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 1991, is residing at Ahmadabad since then, and petitioner No.3 is the resident of Bhilwada, Rajasthan and the role ascribed to him is that he was instrumental in the marriage of the complainant with her husband Rajendra Agrawal.

5. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the FIR as also the other documents filed along with the charge-sheet to submit that apart from omnibus allegations levelled against the present petitioners, there is nothing on record to connect them with the aforesaid offence. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier police compliant made by the complainant/respondent No.2 at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) on 18.6.2013, in which the only allegations are against the husband of the complainant and the mother-in-law, and there is not a whisper about the present petitioners being involved in any manner. Similarly, when the complainant again started residing with her husband and mother-in-law, she again left her house, and lodged another complaint on 10.4.2021 at Police Station – Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan alleging ill-treatment by her husband and mother-in-law. Thus, it is submitted even on a bare perusal of the charge-sheet itself no case, as alleged by the prosecution is made out so far as the present petitioners are concerned.

6. In support of his submissions, Shri Godha has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2022 (6) SCC 599.

7. Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR itself. Counsel has also submitted that in respect of demand of dowry, even the letter sent by the mother-in-law of the complainant is also placed on record in which she has demanded various articles to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. However, it is not denied that in the aforesaid letter, there is no reference of the present petitioners having involved in any manner in raising the said demand.

8. Counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer.

9. Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that in the earlier two complaints made