The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing abuse of legal provisions intended to combat dowry harassment, the role of circumstantial evidence, and the need for courts and investigating agencies to act as watchdogs to prevent unfounded and malicious allegations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. None for the respondent No. 2 though served. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case No. 89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the marriage of applicant Tousif Khan was solemnized with respondent No. 2 Ruhina Khan (now no more) on 28-1-2012 and respondents No. 2 to 8 are close relatives of applicant No. 1 Tousif Khan. Deceased Ruhina Khan lodged an FIR against the applicants on 17-10-2012 at Police Station Kirnapur, District Balaghat, which was registered vide Crime No. 145/2012 for offences punishable under sections 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging inter alia that only after three days of marriage, i.e. on 1-2-2012 all the applicants abused her in connection with demand of dowry and beaten her and her husband applicant No. 1 snatched away his mobile in order to prevent her talking with her parents and thereafter consistently demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and a car and threatened her to kill either by administering poison or by burning her by pouring kerosene oil on her. It is further alleged that on 29-2-2012 she came to her parental house where on 6-3-2012 applicant No. 1 and other applicants came and the applicant No. 1 again beaten her and asked to compel her father to give Rs. 5 Lakhs. At that time, her father gave Rs. 1.6 Lakhs to the applicant No. 1. Thereafter, the applicants constantly demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs and for that he harassed and tortured her. On 25-7-2012 she was sent to her parents house with a threat that if their demand is not fulfilled, the applicant No. 1 will give divorce to her. Since then she was residing at her parental house.

3. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicants before J.M.F.C. Balaghat. The learned J.M.F.C. Balaghat took cognizance of the offences against all the applicants and registered criminal case No. 89/2013 against them. The said proceedings are going on, which have been challenged by the applicants on the ground that the applicants have never demanded dowry or harassed deceased Ruhina. The behavior of Ruhina Khan in the matrimonial house was very abnormal and disturbing. Therefore, she was divorced in accordance with the Muslim law on 5-10-2012. The Talaqnama is annexure P/8. Thereafter, as a counter blast against the applicant No. 1 husband and his other relatives a false report has been lodged with a view to take revenge while there is no specific allegation against all the applicants with regard to demand of dowry and harassment. Hence, prayer is made to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

4. Having perused the FIR and other material available with the charge-sheet, so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court there is specific allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment given by him to his wife deceased Ruhina Khan in connection with demand of dowry. But, so far as applicants No. 2 to 8 are concerned, there is no specific allegation of harassment and torture with regard to demand of dowry. Prima facie it appears that they have been implicated because they are close relatives of the applicant No. 1 with a view to take revenge on the basis of vague and omnibus statement.

5. Honble the Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604 in which the Apex Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281 held as under :

10. The object for which section 498-A, Indian Penal Code was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein t