Vague and general allegations without specific overt acts are insufficient to establish culpability under Section 498-A of the IPC.

ORDER

Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2024

This Criminal Miscellaneous has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash Annexure-I FIS, Annexure-II FIR, Annexure-III Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.3892/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry, Kottayam arose out of Crime No.237 of 2018 of Vakathanam Police Station, Kottayam. The petitioner herein is accused No.4 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/4^th accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records including the statement of the de facto complainant.

3. In this matter the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC ') by accused Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The petitioner herein is the brother of the 1^st accused who permanently settled in Australia.

5. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused married the de facto complainant on 09.01.2016 and they started to reside at the matrimonial home as husband and wife. According to the prosecution, during her stay at matrimonial home, she was subjected to persecution by the accused demanding more dowry. The allegation against the petitioner/4^th accused is that when he was at the house between 12.12.2017 to 11.01.2018 from Australia, he entered into the room of the de facto complainant and stated that the de facto complainant would be avoided and the marriage of the 1^st accused would be solemnized after getting more dowry. Further allegation is that the 4^th accused instructed the de facto complainant to go out from the house.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a person permanently settled in Australia and he had occasion to meet the de facto complainant only for 30 days and the allegation against him is only vague and general. According to him no amount of cruelty for the purpose of offence punishable under Section 498-A could be gathered and therefore the case against him is liable to be quashed.

7. Reading the statement of the victim/de facto complainant, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant justified prosecution allegations and argued that the matter would require trial.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the only allegation against the 4^th accused is as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. In this matter, the specific allegation against the the petitioner is that when he was at the matrimonial home between 12.12.2017 to 11.01.2018 from Australia, he entered into the room of the de facto complainant and stated that the de facto complainant would be avoided and the marriage of the 1^st accused would be solemnized after getting more dowry. Further allegation is that the 4^th accused instructed the de facto complainant to go out from the house.

10. It is the settled law that general and omnibus allegations without specifying the overt acts in exact terms are insufficient to fasten the criminal culpability alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC .

11. In the decision reported inAchin Gupta v. State of Haryana,[2024 KHC OnLine 6257 : 2024 (3) KHC SN 24 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1481 ], the Apex Court considered earlier decisions of the Apex Court dealing with Section 498-A of IPC and it was held that general and sweeping allegations without mentioning specific instances of criminal conduct is an abuse of the process of court and in such cases the courts owe a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving some individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly, when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. This Court, in the decision reported inShymala Bhasker V. State of Kerala and Another [MANU/KE