Insufficient specific allegations in a FIR against a family member can justify quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of legal process.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.11191045210675 of 2021 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 498A , 323, 294(b), 506(2), 507 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for the applicant submits that petitioner is cousin sister in law of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that except allegation of threatening tantrums, no other allegations are levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that no specific date and time of incident is mentioned. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record judgment in Criminal Misc. Application No.267 of 2021 passed by learned CJM, Kadi in proceedings under DV Act, whereby, learned Trial Court dismissed the application recording reason that complaiant is living with some third party in relationship like husband and wife. Therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.

3. Learned APP on the other hand, opposing plea to quash the FIR would submit that according to FIR, the petitioner was inciting husband of the complainant and it was root cause for offence alleged against the husband. In view of that, it is submitted that let trial to conduct against the petitioner to test veracity of the allegations. On this grounds, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent no.2 - complainant is served, but did not contest the petition.

5. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section 498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

6. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so far as petitioner is concerned, role of the petitioner is found to be limited of inciting husband of the complainant. It is alleged that due to such incitement, husband of the complaint was extending physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. However, specific incidents are missing in the matter. Causal reference of the petitioner in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance. It is to be noted that application filed by the complainant under DV Act is dismissed and complainant is living with some third person in relation like husband and wife

7. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [2012 (10) SCC 741] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :-

"15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the inlaws, husband's brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482 , Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III