IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) False implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law.
(2) A criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon accused, and such an exercise must be discouraged.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2019, filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) challenging the FIR No. 248/2019 dated 01.04.2019 implicating the Appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The High Court vide order impugned herein dismissed the same.

Factual Matrix

3. The Complainant (Respondent No. 5 herein) Tarannum Akhtar @ Soni, was married to Md. Ikram on 18.09.2017. The appellants herein are the in-laws of Respondent No. 5. On 11.12.2017, the said Respondent initially instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and the appellants before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea alleging demand for dowry and harassment. Thereafter, when the file was put up before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for passing order at the stage of issuance of summon, the Ld. Magistrate concluded that upon perusal of material evidence no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws and that the allegations levelled against them were not specific in nature. The said court, however, took cognizance for the offence under Section 498A, 323 IPC against the husband Md. Ikram, and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and Respondent No. 5 herein came back to the matrimonial home.

4. Subsequently, on 01.04.2019, Respondent No. 5 herein, gave another written complaint for registration of FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC against her husband Md. Ikram and the appellants herein. The complaint inter-alia alleged that all the accused were pressurizing the Respondent wife herein to purchase a car as dowry and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.

5. Aggrieved, the Husband and appellant herein filed a criminal writ petition before the Patna High Court, for quashing of the said FIR dated 01.04.2019, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment. The High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore the matter was required to be investigated by the police. The Appellants herein, being the niece (Respondent No. 1), Mother in-law (Respondent No. 2), Sister in-law (Respondent No. 3), and brother in law (Respondent No. 4) have thereby approached this court by way of the present Special Leave Petition.

Contentions made by the Appellants

6. The counsel for the Appellants herein contends, that the Police Officer was duty bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR as this instant case falls within the categories of cases on which a preliminary enquiry may be made, as mandated by this court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

7. It is also submitted that previously in the year 2017, the Respondent wife had instituted a criminal complaint on similar allegations, whereby the Ld. Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence issued summons only against the husband, and found that the allegations made against the appellants herein were omnibus in nature. Further, it is submitted that the FIR in question has been made with a revengeful intent, merely to harass the Appellant in-laws herein, and should be dealt with accordingly. Reliance is placed on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others, (2018) 10 SCC 443 wherein it was observed:

“4. Regarding the constitutionality of Section 498-A IPC, in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and Others, it was held by the Supreme Court:

“Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not unconstitutional and ultra-vires. Mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. He