Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3470 (HP)

Ujjwal Chand Mehta v. State of H. P.

2025-09-26

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1.The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 28 of 2023, dated 26.7.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 498A, 377 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. According to the petitioners, they have falsely been implicated in the said case, at the instance of respondent No. 2, whereas, according to them, allegations against them are baseless and without any substance. 3. According to the petitioners, no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, except naming them, in the said FIR. 4. As per the further stand of the petitioners, respondent No. 2 had left the matrimonial home on 31.5.2022 and started residing at Solan. Thereafter, after waiting for more than one year, she has lodged the FIR in question, just to harass the petitioners. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that marriage of the complainant was solemnized in the State of Rajasthan, where she was residing, in the matrimonial home, and if the petitioners were torturing the complainant, she would have lodged the FIR, immediately, in Rajasthan itself. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that vague allegations have been levelled against them, as according to them, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners in the FIR in question. They have further pleaded that respondent No. 2 had solemnized the marriage with the son of petitioners No. 1 and 2 by playing fraud, as she was earlier married and without any legal divorce, she had solemnized the marriage with the son of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, just to grab money from them. 7. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate, has prayed that the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, may kindly be quashed. 8. 7. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate, has prayed that the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, may kindly be quashed. 8. When, put to notice, police filed the status report,  disclosing  therein  that  on  26.7.2023, respondent No. 2 appeared before the Police, alongwith her brothers Gautam Chand and Dev Anand Gautam, and made a complaint, disclosing therein that she has been treated with cruelty by her husband Arihant Mehta, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law, sister-in law( sister of her husband), brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) and brother-in-law (brother of her husband). 8.1 According to her, she was married to Arihant Mehta on 25.4.2021, as per Hindu rites and customs. Prior to the marriage, she is stated to be residing with her brother Gautam Chand, in District Solan. In marriage, her brother had given 200-210 grams of gold and 85,000/- cash and other items to her in-laws. However, after 10-15 days of marriage, her husband and the petitioners had started torturing her for not bringing adequate dowry. When, she confronted her husband, he had started beating her. 8.2 According to the complainant, she was bearing the cruel behaviour of her husband, to save his newly solemnized marriage. 8.3 As per the further stand of the complainant, after about one month of marriage, her husband asked her to hand over the jewellery and cash, but, when the complainant refused to do so, then her husband and his family members beaten her up and threw her out of matrimonial home, during the odd hours of night. Her husband and family members had snatched the jewellery and cash from her. She has been tolerating the behaviour of her husband and her in laws, in order to avoid humiliation in the society. 8.4 It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, her husband has started coming back home under the influence of liquor and started beating her. Not only this, the husband of the complainant is stated to have developed unnatural physical relations with her forcibly and upon refusal, he used to beat her. 8.5 It is the further case of the complainant that on 30.5.2022, her husband had beaten her throughout the night and on the next day, she had disclosed this fact to her mother. Not only this, the husband of the complainant is stated to have developed unnatural physical relations with her forcibly and upon refusal, he used to beat her. 8.5 It is the further case of the complainant that on 30.5.2022, her husband had beaten her throughout the night and on the next day, she had disclosed this fact to her mother. On 31.5.2022, she had returned back to the house of her brother and started residing with him. 8.6 Lastly, she has disclosed that her husband had not come to take her back to matrimonial home. She has levelled allegations against the petitioners and her husband Arihant Mehta that they had intentionally treated her with cruelty and they had spoiled her life. She has further deposed that two golden bangles and ear rings were also snatched away by them. 8.7 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that action be taken against the accused persons, upon which, Police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 was medico-legally examined at Zonal Hospital, Solan. Physical evidence, so collected by the Doctor, was taken into possession and sent for SFSL, Junga. The statement of respondent No. 2 was got recorded, under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, according to the direction of learned ASJ-I, Solan, accused Arihant Mehta joined the investigation, on 31.7.2023 and 1.8.2023. However, rest of the accused, i.e. petitioners, are stated to have not joined the investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed, against the petitioners, under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and against accused Arihant Mehta, under Sections 498-A, 377, 506 and 34 IPC. 9. Respondent-State has also filed reply in this case, denying the allegations, as levelled in the petition. 10. Complainant has also filed reply, re-asserting the allegations, as levelled, in the FIR in question. 11. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of filing the present petition, under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them, and the proceedings resultant thereto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor,reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain directions for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Relevant paragraphs 28 to 30 are reproduced as under: “28. P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them, and the proceedings resultant thereto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor,reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain directions for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Relevant paragraphs 28 to 30 are reproduced as under: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati versus State of Uttar Pradesh & anr., reported as (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 549 has held that if there are bald allegations, but nothing to justify the same, the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised to quash the proceedings. Relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 are reproduced, as under: “14. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under : “102. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 15. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others.” 13. In view of above legal preposition, this Court would now proceed to consider the role of the petitioners, in the present case to ascertain the fact, whether any case is made out against them or not, as, at this stage, the allegations levelled against them, as well as, the evidence, so found/collected by the prosecution, is to be considered, as it is. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (brother of husband of complainant), brother-in-law (husband of sister in law of complainant) and sister-in-law (sister of husband of complainant). The main thrust of the complainant, in the present case is upon her husband, and in that process, she had also named the petitioners, as accused. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Payal Sharma versus State of Punjab & Anr., Citation No. 2024 INSC 896 , has held that there is tendency to rope in the entire family in the matrimonial dispute. It has also been held that in case of lack of specific allegations, it is the duty of the Court to consider the contentions, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., whether the allegations, so levelled, against the relatives, make out a prima-facie case, against them, or not. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. P.C., whether the allegations, so levelled, against the relatives, make out a prima-facie case, against them, or not. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.1, this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature. In this context, it is to be noted that the term 'relative' has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:- "The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection." 10. The allegations of harassment by husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection." 10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order. 11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. , this Court held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. 12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of accused No.5 a little later and now, will consider the challenge of complainant against quashment of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings based thereon, qua accused No.6 bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions. It is to be noted that the impugned order itself would reveal that the learned counsel who appeared for the complainant admitted before the High Court regarding the absence of allegations against accused No.6 as relates offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. This is discernible from paragraph 6 of the impugned order and it reads thus:- "6. Qua Petitioner No.1, Ld. Counsel admits that so far as Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned, there are no specific allegations. He asserts that offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120- B of the IPC have been added later on and the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 shall well fall within the ambit of Sections 420 IPC and 417 of the IPC." (self-emphasis supplied) 15. In this case, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has raised objections that arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners, qua the fact that entire family members have been roped-in, in the case, on the general allegations, is not liable to be accepted, as powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are confined only to see whether a prima-facie case is made out against the  petitioners or not. 16. P.C. are confined only to see whether a prima-facie case is made out against the  petitioners or not. 16. The arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are not acceptable in view of a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & others versus State of H.P. & others, Citation No. 2023 INSC 684 , wherein, it has been held that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case. Relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When  exercising  jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (self  emphasis  supplied) 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & anr., reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 343, have elaborately discussed the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (self  emphasis  supplied) 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & anr., reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 343, have elaborately discussed the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR, in such type of cases. Relevant paragraphs 18, 31 to 34 are reproduced as under: “18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant’s family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected  in  the  criminal  complaints. Majority  of  the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.” (self-emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode versus the State of Maharashtra & anr., Citation No. 2024 INSC 798 . Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 are reproduced as under: “11. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to keep reminded of the observations of this Court in the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 are reproduced as under: “11. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to keep reminded of the observations of this Court in the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1. This Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. 12. We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.” 19. It is a trite law that at the time of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., correctness of the allegations should not be dwelled into by this Court, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik B. vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & anr., reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 642. 20. In view of above legal proposition, this Court would now proceed to determine whether the petitioners are able to make out a case for exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., in their favour, for granting the relief, as prayed for. 21. In the complaint, which was filed by respondent No. 2 on 19.6.2023, the general allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. Her main thrust in the complaint was against her husband, as she has levelled allegations against her husband that he, in connivance with her family members, had thrown her out of matrimonial home. No specific role has been alleged against the petitioners. 22. Although, in the complaint, she has deposed that on 30.5.2022, she was beaten up by her husband, throughout the night, and on the next day, she has disclosed this fact to her mother. On 31.5.2022, she is stated to have left her matrimonial home and started residing with her brother, but no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. 23. No doubt, the FIR should not be the encyclopedia of the events, as the FIR is nothing but to put the criminal machinery into motion. On 31.5.2022, she is stated to have left her matrimonial home and started residing with her brother, but no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. 23. No doubt, the FIR should not be the encyclopedia of the events, as the FIR is nothing but to put the criminal machinery into motion. however, considering the peculiar facts that respondent No. 2 allegedly left the matrimonial home on 31.5.2022 and the complaint was filed on 19.6.2023, it cannot be concluded that the FIR in question was lodged promptly or without deliberation with cool mind, as the matter has been reported to the Police after a gap of more than one year. The complainant has not levelled any specific allegations against the petitioners. 24. In her statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on 26.7.2023, the complainant had got lodged the fact that on 21.8.2022, her husband had beaten her and confined her in the room and bolted the same from outside. According to her, petitioner No. 2 was also with her son (husband of the complainant), who allegedly instigated her son by asking him to beat her in proper manner, as she is talkative. This allegation is too short for the survival of the proceedings against petitioner No. 2. 25. Statement of the brother of complainant Gautam Chand was also recorded by the Police, under Section 161 Cr. P.C., on 3.8.2023, however, her brother remained silent about the specific allegations, against the petitioners, except deposing that she has disclosed to him that petitioners and her husband used to harass her. The alleged incident of 21.8.2021 has not been got mentioned, by the complainant, in her statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 26. Similarly, the brother of complainant Dev Anand, in his statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., on 31.7.2023, has alleged the general allegations against the petitioners. 27. Two persons, namely Padam Chand and Shanti Devi were associated in the investigation as independent witnesses. Their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. However, both of them had levelled general allegations against the petitioners. 28. P.C., on 31.7.2023, has alleged the general allegations against the petitioners. 27. Two persons, namely Padam Chand and Shanti Devi were associated in the investigation as independent witnesses. Their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. However, both of them had levelled general allegations against the petitioners. 28. If the allegations, as levelled against the petitioners, as per the charge-sheet, are considered in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Chaddha versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 671 this Court is of the view that vague allegations are too short to constitute the alleged act of the petitioners within the definition of ‘cruelty’, as defined, under Section 498-A of IPC. Relevant paragraphs 8 to 14 of the judgment, are reproduced as under: 8. At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air. 9. In the present case, the allegations made by the Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted from the matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of her father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the Appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the Appellant and her family who pushed her out of the house; however, no medical document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations. 10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find that apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are of the considered view that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial Court has rightly held that evidence of the Complainant is the only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons, and that there was no medical examination conducted by the Complainant, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical assault. 11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to the material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the co- accused parents-in-law for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 & Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that the Trial Court had passed the order of conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1 corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. Although one cannot deny the emotional or mental torture that the Complainant may have undergone in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In this respect, we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In consideration thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited with the Appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR registered by the Complainant was not genuine. 12. In respect thereof, the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction ought to have examined the correctness of decision of the Trial Court in light of the material on record, which reveals nothing incriminatory against the Appellant to sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Although we do not agree with the submission on behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 was passed in absentia, however the High Court was well within its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all certainty, it could have saved 6 years’ worth of time for the Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of today. 13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.4 appropriately encapsulates this essence as under: “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid (2025) 3 SCC 735 unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.” 14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law. (self emphasis supplied) 29. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 28 of 2023, dated 26.7.2023, registered under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, qua petitioners namely Ujjawal Chand Mehta, Leela Devi Mehta, Gaurav Mehta, Dheeraj Lunia and Chandni, are quashed. 30. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 30.1   Record be sent back.