General and omnibus allegations in dowry cases against relatives do not warrant prosecution; specific allegations are necessary to avoid misuse of legal provisions.

ORDER :

The petitioners before this Court prayed for quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa upon the FIR lodged by respondent no.2, Anjali Singh under Section 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and two others.

2. Respondent no.2/complainant Anjali Singh was married to coaccused Sandeep Singh Chouhan on 1.12.2020. Petitioner No.1, Varsh Singh is sister-in-law and petitioner no.2, Krishna Sharan Singh is the brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) of complainant. It appears that unfortunately the marriage could not survive for a longer period and on 1.10.2022, complainant lodged FIR which was registered as Crime No.l70/2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Rewa against her husband, father-in-law and the petitioners upon the allegation that after marriage all the accused persons raised demand of dowry and demanded cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, four wheeler, gold and later on harassed the complainant as their demand was not fulfilled. It is alleged in the FIR that petitioners whenever visited to residence of complainant asked complainant to bring dowry from her father. It is also alleged in the FIR that when complainant failed to fulfill their demand, her husband and father-in-law had threatened complainant. Thereafter, father of complainant visited at the residence of complainant's matrimonial house and tried for settling the issues but accused persons were not ready to realise and the complainant was compelled to left her matrimonial house and since then she is living with her parents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners and no specific act of the petitioners is alleged in the FIR. Petitioners are living separately in District Satna, M.P. whereas the complainant was staying at village Prayagraj, UP with her husband and father-in-law and therefore there was no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass the complainant. It is argued that petitioners have been implicated in the present case only being the close relative of husband of complainant and there is no evidence against the petitioners except the bald allegations. Police has filed charge-sheet after completing the investigation and matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa as RCT No.2263/2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and the charge-sheet has been filed against them without considering the fact that petitioner no.1 is marriage sister-in-law and living at a distance place with her husband, petitioner no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein the Apex Court has quashed the FIR registered against the sister-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and niece. He prayed for quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings qua petitioners.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State opposed the prayer on the ground that complainant has named petitioners in FIR and her statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein specific allegations were levelled against the petitioners that they were also demanding dowry from the complainant. However upon asking, learned P.L. fairly admitted that petitioners were not residing with complainant in her matrimonial house. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/complainant submits that due to active interference of petitioner no.1 in the family of complainant, incident took place and complainant has alleged in the FIR that petitioners also demanded dowry and harassed her therefore, no case for quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings is made out. He further submits that in the criminal proceedings, the charges might have been framed and theref