HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2140 of 2018 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charegsheet dated 27.09.2017 & cognizance order dated 25.11.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4916 of 2017, (State Vs. Arif & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0105 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. He further submits that there is general allegations made in the FIR against the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant nos.1 & 2 are mother-in-law and husband of opposite party no.2. There is no specific allegation against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. On the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the paragraph no.18 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others Vs State of Telangana & Another, 2024 INSC 953, the Supreme Court has observed that vague allegation may lead to misuse of legal process. In this respect, para 18 & 28 is quoted herein below: “18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.G.A., Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Suhas Subhash Mehta Smt. Zarina and others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations." 4. Learned AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer with the submission that there is specific allegation has been made in statement of opposite party no.2 recorded during the course of investigation against the applicants. There is no variation in the version of FIR or the statement of opposite party no.2. The chargesheet has been filed after proper investigation. It is further submitted that the cognizance has already been taken in the matter. It is also submitted that there is material evidence on record to proceed with the trial. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and no interference is called for. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence. 6. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that there are specific and separate allegations against the applicants. It is evident from the allegation made in the FIR that all the allegations are not entirely false against the present applicants. The present applicants are husband and mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2. The applicants were chargesheeted by the Investigating Officer concerned after due investigation and material collected during the course of investigation. The cruelty may be either physical or mental, and in all cases, no physical injury is required to establish a prima facie case. 7. In the present case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated against the applicants with an ulterior motive, as the opposite party no.2 has stated in the FIR that the said compromise was not made with her free consent. It is also stated that the applicants are fraudulently A482 No. 2140 of 2018 2 prepared the Talaknama and opposite party no.2 had never sign on it; the forged signature was made by the applicant and the said Talaknama was not registered before any competent authority. All the submissions made on behalf of the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. In this case, after registration of FIR, the Investigating Officer after investigation has submitted the chargesheet against the applicants and cognizance have been taken by learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.11.2017. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the present applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused. 8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. April 10, 2026 S.K. A482 No. 2140 of 2018 3 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad