ATINWUARRAIDHA DsATD21+ i 00 IN i a g 0 W g 2: t n 5 U 2 i e6 t A 3 e 5 : R a . d 0 R 0: l A 3 l 3 I by 0 D . y 1 H 3 A

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Saurabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and have been initiated with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, omnibus and general in nature, without attributing any specific overt act to the petitioners, particularly petitioner No.2 who is the mother-in-law. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value, the basic ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 294, 323 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC are not made out against the petitioners.

3. It is further argued that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and has been exaggerated by the complainant by making false and concocted allegations with the intention to pressurize the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have never demanded any dowry from the complainant or her family members and the allegations regarding demand of money and a car are completely false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the complainant herself was not willing to reside with petitioner No.1 at Chennai and preferred to stay at her parental home, which ultimately resulted in matrimonial discord between the parties.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system and would cause grave injustice to them. It is therefore prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR, charge-sheet as well as the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh be quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers, as the same are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and have been instituted only to wreak vengeance against the petitioners.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the petition and submits that the FIR as well as the material collected during the course of investigation clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. It is contended that after due investigation the police have filed the charge-sheet and the trial Court has already taken cognizance of the offences. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant regarding demand of dowry and cruelty are matters of evidence which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner No.1 has failed to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 05.02.2026, whereby while referring the matter to the Mediation Centre, this Court had directed petitioner No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Mediation Centre. It is submitted that despite the said direction, the petitioner No.1 has not deposited the aforesaid amount, which shows lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition.

8. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Supreme Court has held that casual reference to the family member of the husband in FIR as co- accused particularly when there is no specific allegation and complaint did not disclose their active involvement. It was