The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR in a matrimonial dispute if the allegations against the accused are general, omnibus, and lack specific particulars or essential ingredients of the alleged offences, thereby constituting an abuse of legal process.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing FIR No. 23 dated 06.12.2018, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, Police Station Women (Cell) Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. Complainant Darshana Rani r/o Mohan Ke Uttar, Tehsil and District Ferozepur submitted that her marriage was solemnised by her brother with Harbhajan Singh 15 months back. Her parents had expired and her brother had given Istri Dhani for her use, including ornaments, furniture, motor cycle hero deluxe. Two months after the marriage, her in-laws started taunting her for brining less dowry. Many a times, on the intervention of the Panchayat, they assured not to demand dowry but soon thereafter, again started talking of dowry. She was residing in her parents house for the last six months. Her relatives again intervened and sent her back. She lived there for 10 days. When her brother was coming to meet her, they told her to ask him to bring motor cycle. When she told them that he was unable to purchase Bullet motorcycle being a labourer, her father-in-law said that he was a Government employee, earning Rs.50,000/- and many rich families were still inquiring about his son for marriage. Her mother-in-law Gurdevan Bai, brother-in-law Baj Singh started thrashing her. Her husband caught hold of her head and banged it on the wall. Her sister-in-law (Jethani) also thrashed her. When she fell down unconscious, they called her brother telephonically conveying that she was ill. When he reached, he found her lying unconscious in the courtyard and took her to Civil Hospital, Gurharsahai for treatment where her medico-legal report was prepared. Legal action was prayed for.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 was the elder sister-in-law (Jethani) and petitioner No.2 was the brother-in law (Jeth) of respondent No.2 who were married many years before marriage of the complainant and were residing separately. Their names were dragged in the FIR only to harass them. There was no specific allegation of any demand or entrustment qua the petitioners. An affidavit was sworn by respondent No.2 and also by her brother according to which respondent No.2 received all dowry articles and Rs.70,000/- from the petitioners. It was also agreed in Panchayat that respondent No.2 would get the FIR quashed. Respondent No.2 however evaded appearance in the case and was not willing to get the FIR quashed. Prosecution of the petitioners was an abuse of process of law and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition arguing that contents of the FIR discloses commission of offence under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and it was not a fit case to quash at the very threshold. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Scope and ambit of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been laid down in a number of cases. Every High Court has inherent powers to do real and substantial justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, the very plenitude of the power requires great caution and circumspection in its exercise.

6. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can be and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the fist information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in this entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Muniswamy and Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Criminal Pr