The High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial under Section 482 CrPC to check the veracity of allegations; it may only quash proceedings if the FIR fails to disclose a cognizable offence or contains vague, omnibus allegations against the accused.

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Giri, learned senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned APP for the State.

2. These applications have been preferred for quashing of the FIR being Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 184 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 85, 352, 351(2), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The facts giving rise to the present case is to the effect that the informant namely Megha Singh/O.P. No. 2, had given written statement that her marriage was solemnized with Ankit Singh in 2017. After few days, the petitioner families started torturing her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The informant further alleges that petitioner, Sweta Singh in the state of intoxication tried to give her a knife blow and she along with her mother Punam Singh was harrasing her mentally. It is further alleged by the informant that her father in law in the state of intoxication treid to abuse her sexually with the reason that there was non fulfillment of dowry demand. After the birth of informant’s daughter the petitioners tried to take her away and coerced her to give that child for Adoption. It is further alleged by the informant that petitioner no 3 also tried to sexually abuse her. The informant left her matrimonial home along with her daughter. On the basis of written application FIR was registered against the petitioners. Hence the present applications.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are quite innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegations are false, frivolous, fabricated and concocted and having no essence of truth. That in Cr. Misc. No. 75805 of 2024, Petitioner No. 1 and 4 are the Cousin Father-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 and 5 is the Cousin Mother-in-law, Petitioner No. 3 is the cousin Brother-in-law, Petitioner No. 6 and 7 are married sister-in-law whereas Petitioner No. 8 is the nephew of Petitioner No. 2 who is not in any way directly related to Husband of O.P. No. 2.

5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other than petitioner nos. 6 and 7 of Cr. Misc. No. 75805 of 2024, all the other petitioners are distant relatives and live their life separately. It is further submitted that petitioner no 6 and 7 are married sister in laws and have nothing to do with the family affairs of the informant. It is next submitted that Petitioner no 8 is the nephew of petitioner no 2 who in no way connected with the husband of O.P. No. 2.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the O.P. No. 2 from the very solemnization of marriage was never found interested in starting her conjugal relations with her husband and was constantly committing cruelty through her unprecedented, indecent and violent behavior towards him and other family members. She was prejudiced with the sense of abhorrence towards her entire matrimonial relations. It is next submitted that Petitioners, despite the tormenting and cruel behavior of O.P. No. 2, remained silent in the hope that with time she would adjust to her new family and understand her marital responsibilities. It has next been submitted that the petitioners made several efforts to restore harmony in the strained relationship, but all attempts failed due to her continued misconduct towards her husband and family members. It is next submitted that within a s