The court emphasized the need for specific allegations in matrimonial disputes to avoid misuse of legal provisions by upholding false accusations against distant relatives.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 12 stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.64/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 504, 323, 506, 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC ' for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961.

2. Heard the learned counsel Dr. Amit Anand Deshpande for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri Umesh P.B. for the complainant / Respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP for the State.

3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis. The accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant. Accused No. 2, 3 and 4 are the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No.4. Accused Nos. 6 to 12 are the other family members of accused No.1 - husband.

4. The accused No.1 and the complainant get married on 09.02.2014. After about eight years of the marriage, it transpires that the relationship between the two flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the proceedings are instituted by the petitioner against the wife or wife against the petitioner. After fighting a battle between each other before the Civil Court, comes the impugned crime, which is registered on 25.06.2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The moment the crime is registered, the petitioners are before this Court calling in question the said registration of the crime. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted an interim order of stay qua all the petitioners and the said interim order is operating even as on date.

5. Dr. Amit Anand Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the allegations against the petitioners cannot be seen to be forming the ingredients of Section 498A or any other offence that is alleged. Therefore, if further investigation is permitted against the petitioners, it would become an abuse of the process of the law. He would seek to place reliance upon a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court or this Court, as the case would be, to buttress his submission that the investigation itself should not be permitted to be continued in the case at hand.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Shri Umesh P.B., would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and this Court should not lend its protective hands to the petitioners who have abused and tortured the complainant - wife. Merely because divorce proceedings or any other proceedings are pending between the parties, it cannot be the rule that the criminal proceedings should be quashed at the stage of investigation. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition contending that the complaint clearly narrates the offences against all the petitioners.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The relationship between the parties is what is narrated hereinabove. The floundering of the relationship between accused No.1 - husband and respondent No.2 - wife has led the complainant to register the subject crime. The entire issue has now triggered from registration of the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as follows:

Immediately after the registration of the complaint, the petitioners approach this Court, and there is an interim order of stay operating, which was granted at the hands of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, there is no investigation that has taken pl