The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash legitimate complaints unless allegations do not constitute an offence.

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . has been filed for quashment of RCT No.13490/2023 pending before the Court of JMFC, Bhopal as well as entire charge sheet filed in the Crime No.252/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal, for offence under Section 498-A, 34 IPC, under Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 4 of the Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

2. According to the prosecution case, complainant lodged an FIR to the effect that she got married to applicant no.1 on 24.12.2016 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals. After one month of her marriage, when she returned back to her matrimonial house, the behavior of the applicants had changed towards her. They all started abusing her. Mother-in-law was saying that her father has not given a car whereas she has given a car in the marriage of her daughter, therefore, respondent no. 2 should also bring a car along with an amount of Rs. 2 lacs. When she informed this fact to her husband, then he also scolded that her father has not given any thing in the dowry and, therefore, he wants a car and also used to abuse her filthily. Applicant no. 4 was also scolding that her father has not given anything and whatever has been given, it is generally given by normal people. He was also scolding that she has given a birth to a girl child and was also continuously harassing her mentally. When she narrated the entire incident to her parents, then they tried to convince her that with the passage of time, her husband would improve. Accordingly, she continued to face the harassment at the hands of her-in-laws. On 19.1.2020 she was beaten by all four applicants and accordingly, FIR was lodged in Police Station Khajuri Sadak. When atrocities of the applicants did not reduce, then again she made a complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal in the year 2020 where reconciliation proceedings took place. After reconciliation, when she went back to her matrimonial house on 7.6.2020 and immediately thereafter atrocities of the applicants again started. On 29.8.2022 she was beaten by her husband and accordingly, she lodged a complaint to the police station Khajuri Sadar where it was termed as non-cognizable report. Thereafter, she went back to her parental home. Again she came back to matrimonial house in the month of January and on 7.5.2023 she was ousted by the applicants from her matrimonial house. When her mother contacted her husband on phone, then he started abusing her on phone itself. On 16.6.2023 she along with her mother went to her matrimonial house then she was beaten by applicants no. 3 and 4 and also scolded that when applicant no. 1 does not wish to keep her, then why she is coming again and again.

It was also alleged that applicant no.1 in the presence of her mother has given talaq-e-biddat , by uttering triple talaq. She went to lodge report at Police Station Khajuri Sadak but she did not make a complaint about triple talaq because she wanted to reside with her husband. On 14.8.2023 her husband sent a notice of talaq-e-bain and also mentioned that now relationship is over. One Fatwa was also sent. Accordingly, it was alleged that the applicants have treated her with mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry and has also given her talaq-e-bain as well as talaq-e -biddat.

3. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the allegation that applicant no.1 had given a talaq-e-biddat to respondent no. 2 is false. On 11.8.2023 applicant no. 1 had sent a talaq-e-bain to respondent no. 2 pointing out that she is no more his wife w.e.f. 27.6.2023. This notice was replied by respondent no. 2 in which she did not disclose about talaq-e-biddat and in fact, she had given a threat to applicant no.1

that she would lodge a report against him for giving talaq-e-biddat.

It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 is in the habit of making false allegations and