The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific allegations in cases of demand of dowry, the careful scrutiny of complaints in matrimonial disputes, and the need to protect innocent parties from harassment.

ORDER :

Shri Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State. Shri Pooran Singh Rana, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. With the consent of parties, matter heard finally.

3. The present petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the present petitioners seeking quashment of FIR registered against them vide Crime No. 481/2015 at Police Station Hazira, District-Gwalior for the alleged offences under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are brother in law and sister-in-law (Jeth and Jethani respectively) and petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of respondent No. 2/complainant.

5. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 on 23-9-2015 and FIR was registered under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners as well as husband of the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant was solemnized on 3-6-2013. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living separately at Bangalore (State of Karnataka) since 2011; much before the marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is working as software consultant at Bangalore. Necessary documents have been filed in this regard as Annexure P/4 to P/7. Similarly, petitioner No. 3 got married 15 years back prior to the alleged date of incident and she resides with her husband separately in different house in Gwalior city and at no point of time, she resided with respondent No. 2/complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the marriage of the complainant solemnized on 3-6-2013, some differences have cropped up in the relationship of the complainant and her husband Gourav Tripathi, therefore, her husband has made a complaint to the Police Station, Hazira on 26-8-2015 regarding misbehaviour of the complainant/his wife. He categorically alleged in the said complaint about the intention of his wife (present complainant) to implicate him and his family members on false pretext. On 27-8-2015, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District-Gwalior also, alleging the same facts. On the basis of the complaint filed by the husband of the complainant-Gourav Tripathi on 21-9-2015, both the parties were called upon by the Family Settlement Center, Gwalior and after discussions with both the parties, the matter was partially settled and next follow up date was given as on 28-9-2015 wherein, the husband and wife had to appear and further resolve their differences, if any, existed. It seems that before the next follow up date i.e. 28-9-2015, respondent No. 2/complainant had filed a complaint on 23-9-2015 for demand of dowry along with certain other allegations and FIR was registered.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the reconciliation proceedings also, the complainant had never alleged about the act of petitioners for demand of dowry. Implication of the petitioners is in fact came as an afterthought. Further contentions of the petitioners are that they have been falsely implicated in the present case while they have not committed any alleged offence in any manner whatsoever. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living at a distinct place at Bangalore whereas petitioner No. 3 is a married woman living with her husband and family members and not living with the present complainant. They have no reasons to harass the complainant or to make any demand of dowry. Only omnibus allegations against the present petitioners have been levelled and no specific instances of demand of dowry have been mentioned or elaborated by the complainant. Neither the complaint nor the statement made by the complainant as per section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code could suggest the involvement of present petitioners for demand of dowry.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners reli