General and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not suffice for prosecution under Section 498-A IPC; specific allegations are required.

ORDER

1. On 12.04.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners not pressed the petition on behalf of petitioner No.1-Saurabh Soni, who is the husband of the complainant and consequently the petition was dismissed qua petitioner No.1-Saurabh Soni and trial may go on against him.

2. Petitioner No.2 Mahesh Soni is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 Usha Soni is mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 Surbhi Soni is sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 Nidhi Jadiya.

3. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.299/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the family members of the husband have been implicated in the present matter only on the basis of the omnibus allegations and there are no sufficient overt act alleged against the mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law to put them on trial. He further submits that the plain reading of FIR and charge sheet papers indicate that the allegations leveled against the relatives of the husband are quite vague, general and no specific instance of commission of offence has been stated in the FIR and no material is available in the charge sheet, which may attributed to them. He further submits that the FIR was registered upon written complaint lodged by the complainant. He further submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, allegations and evidence collected during investigation there is nothing on record to continue the criminal trial against the close relatives of the husband.

5. He relied on the various pronouncement of Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Poddar & Another (2010) 10 SCC 673, Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another (2010) 9 SCC 667, Neelu Chopra & Anr. vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2022) SCC Online SC 162, Raghuvir vs. State of Maharastra & Another; Criminal Appeal No.900/2018 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10350/2017), Mahalakshmi & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.494/2023 and Dushyant Kumar Rojra and others vs. The State of M.P. and another, passed in W.P. No.28918/2021 on 22.04.2024 and submits that only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, the closed relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted.

6. Learned Government Advocate submits that no case of quashment is made out. Allegations are enough against all the petitioners and during trial on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence the allegations will be proved. Therefore, at this stage, interference by this Court is not warranted.

He prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. Relying on the arguments of the learned Govt. Advocate, counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that petitioners 7 No. 2 to 4 actively participated in the criminal act and all of them were indulged and involved in causing cruelty and harassment to the complainant. Specific allegations are there against all the petitioners, therefore, no case for quashment is made out.

8. He further submits that the marriage was solemnized on 07.12.2021 at Chhatarpur and at the time of marriage the father of complainant had given Rs.15.00 l