The court emphasized the need for caution in matrimonial cases, quashing an FIR based on false allegations to prevent abuse of legal processes.

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR being CR No. 11198036200029 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences under Sections 498(A) , 323 , 504 and 114 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Going through the compilation of the petition, it appears that complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are sister-in-law of the complainant and husband of the petitioner No.1 respectively. In the present case, it appears that marriage of the respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was solemnized on 22.5.2017. That, they both are residing separately. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have mentally and physically harassed the complainant. Looking to the averments set out in the complaint, it seems that by virtue of position of respondent No.2’s father serving in police department, the FIR has lodged before Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar despite the fact that all the alleged incidents as stated by the respondent No.2 has happened at Vadodara. That, with a view to implicate all the family members the respondent No.2 has lodged the false, fabricated and concocted FIR against all the family members.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the proceedings is found to be beyond purview and scope of section 498(A) , 323 , 504 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act coupled with the fact that the petitioners are not directly or indirectly involved in the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the complainant has not explained the reasons for causing the delay in the FIR. He has further submitted that looking to the entire FIR, there is self- contradictory statements which itself proves the innocence of the petitioners. He has therefore, requested this Court to allow the present application and quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1-State have strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted that the present petitioners are involved in the serious offence. Therefore, no lenient view can be taken in favour of the petitioners and ultimately, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and learned APP have requested this Court to dismiss the present application.

6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the material available on record, in the complaint, it is alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have mentally and physically harassed the complainant. It appears that petitioners are facing charge of Section 498A of IPC . Therefore, as per the allegations made in the complaint, ingredient of Section 498A is made out. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015); Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ]; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024 INSC 369 ; Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 and Mahalakshmi & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 1050 , it is observed that “this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed