Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and High Court

Government pleader is absent.

This petition is filed for quashing of proceedings

initiated against the petitioner. This Court has earlier allowed

the petition filed by the father-in-law in Crl.P No.7611/2020

and quash the proceedings vide order dated 25^th day of

January-2021. Now, the petitioner who is the husband of the

complainant has approached this Court. The main contention of

the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that this Court has

already quashed the proceedings against father-in-law and

- 3 -

apart from that the complainant has filed M.C No.70/2019

wherein this petitioner had appeared and given consent for

divorce and the same is a subsequent development and M.C

No.70/2019 was allowed and granted divorce in favour of the

complainant and hence, this Court has to exercise the power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. The

counsel for petitioner also would vehemently contend that no

specific allegations are made and allegations made against the

petitioner is omnibus and hence this Court can exercise the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3.

Having perused the material available on record, no

doubt this Court quashed the proceedings against the father-in-

law vide order dated 25.01.2021 and this Court while quashing

the proceedings in paragraph No.6 has taken note of the fact

that there is inconsistency in the allegation against the father-

in-law and statement of witnesses is also a heresay statement

and merely because saying a word in the compliant that he was

subjected to both for mental and physical harassment is not a

ground to continue the criminal proceedings. The continuity of

the criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein on the

basis of omnibus allegation and inconsistent statement would

- 4 -

amount an abuse of process. Apart from that taken note of the

fact that on perusal of entire allegation, mainly the allegation is

against the husband and also discloses that the father-in-law

was not staying with the complainant and only allegation is that

he was visiting the house and hence this Court quashed the

proceedings against the father-in-law.

4.

On perusal of specific accusation made against this

petitioner while invoking offences punishable under Section

498A and Section 323 of IPC and the specific overt act

allegation is made against this petitioner while invoking Section

323 of IPC R/w Section 34 of IPC and also Section 498A of IPC

wherein specific allegation is made against this petitioner not

only he subjected her for cruelty stating that she gave a birth

to a girl baby and the same is not belongs to him and he

wanted to have the boy child and also not only that he had

continued the physical assault and that on 19.03.2018

assaulted her and he left the house and he came back to house

on 07.05.2018 when the complainant was not in the house and

he driven out her from the matrimonial house subjecting her

for both mental and physical cruelty and in this regard, the

statement of witnesses also recorded during the course of the

- 5 -

investigation and when such specific overt act allegation is

made against this petitioner and accusation is made this

petitioner that he subjected her for physical assault and also

driven out her from the matrimonial home and these are the

aspects has to be considered during the course of Trial. The

very contention that the quashing of proceedings against the

father-in-law cannot be a ground and this Court while quashing

the proceedings against the father-in-law made an observation

that an inconsistent statement found and also father-in-law was

not staying along with the victim and also with this petitioner

and when such being the case, when the statement of

witnesses also recorded and those witnesses are also to be

examined before the Trial Court and the contention that there

is a inconsistent statement cannot be accepted and the

statements are specific subjecting her for cruelty and

ha