Allegations in FIR must be specific to establish a case under section 498-A; general allegations lead to quashing of proceedings.

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

31.07.2025

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application by making an order to quash the Crime No.87/2023 dated 02/04/2023 & quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before JMFC Bemetara, District:Bemetara as Criminal Case No.2003/2023 and discharge from the case to the petitioners.”

2. As per mediation report dated 24/10/2024, mediation between the parties has failed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would that the petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law and petitioner Nos.5 & 6 are the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. Marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the respondent No.2 on 02.05.2019 and just after the marriage, she went to Salheghori along with her husband and she was residing with her husband. The respondent No. 2 during residing with her husband, always threatened him and his entire family members and she wants to live separately. He would submit that the victim used to quarrel with the family member of the petitioners and after sometime, she went to Indra Awas Colony Nawagarh District Bemetara where she delivered one male child in June 2020, but petitioner No. 1 and his family members have no knowledge about the fact of the delivery of the child. The husband tried to take his wife many times, but the complainant/respondent No.2 refused to live with him and forced to live separately from his parents. He further submits that ‘n’ numbers of social meetings and counselings were conducted, but she never wants to live with the parents of the petitioner No.1. On 02/04/2023, false complaint was lodged against the petitioners by the respondent No.2/complainant under Section 498-A , 34 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the dowry demand has been made by the petitioners, due to which, offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

6. The Supreme Court in the mater of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] laid down the principles of law relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: -

7. “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexib