IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that vague and omnibus allegations cannot be a basis for forcing the accused to undergo trial, and the court can quash proceedings if specific allegations are not made against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A2 & A3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1004/2020 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy in Cr.No.304/2020 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station. The offences alleged against them are under Ss. 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. The 2nd respondent who is the wife of Accused No.1 filed a complaint stating that she was married to Accused No.1 on 1/2/2018 at Kolkata and at the time of marriage her parents gave gold jewellery, silver towards dowry. However, the husband and parents-in-law started harassing her for additional dowry. Accused No.1 did not lead a normal 'husband and wife' relation and threatened to divorce her. Accused No.1 beat her whenever she questioned his odd behavior. Aggrieved by the said conduct, the 2nd respondent filed present complaint.

4. The police having registered the crime, investigated and filed charge sheet against these petitioners and Accused No.1 for the offences under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that all the allegations are leveled against Accused No.1. Except stating that these petitioners were abetting and instigating Accused No.1 to ask for additional dowry and in turn Accused No.1 allegedly beating her, there are no other allegations against these petitioners. When the allegations in the complaint are vague and omnibus in nature, the proceedings against these petitioners have to be quashed. He also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein at para-21 it is specifically held as follows;

"21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the complaint makes out specific allegations against these petitioners and further in the reply notice addressed to the Station House Officer, P.S. Ramachandrapuram, Cyberabad, for the notice issued under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C., several details were narrated. In the said reply notice, there are several details of harassment specifically mentioned against these petitioners on several occasions. In view of the said reply notice and allegations made therein, it cannot be said that the allegations are vague as argued by the counsel for petitioners. He further submits that during the course of trial, the 2nd respondent would narrate all instances in details for which reason, the prosecution cannot be quashed.

7. Having gone through the charge sheet, complaint and statements recorded under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. of the 2nd respondent, it is alleged that these petitioners were instigating Accused No.1 and in turn Accused No.1 used to beat the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that her husband's behavior was inappropriate towards her and he was a drunkard and several times her husband became aggressive and hit her and behaved in rude manner.

8. In matrimonial cases, the events that transpire are narrated to the Police by lodging a complaint or during recording of statements under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. It can be inferred that the statement being at the earliest point of ti