[2025:RJ-JP:44547] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2047/2018 1. Arun Kumar Bambaiya S/o Shri Karan Singh, R/o 1/147, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Behind The Tara Mahindra Showroom, in front of Rahul Supari Factory, Bharatpur, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, Raj. 2. Lachchho Devi W/o Shri Karan Singh, R/o 1/147, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Behind The Tara Mahindra Showroom, in front of Rahul Supari Factory, Bharatpur, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, Raj. 3. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Karan Singh, R/o 1/147, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Behind The Tara Mahindra Showroom, in front of Rahul Supari Factory, Bharatpur, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Smt. Priyanka Kumari W/o Shri Arun Kumar Bambaiya, D/o Shri Rajendra, R/o Nagla Chimmatan Rundh, Roopwas, Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Jain on behalf of Mr. Anil Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rajendra Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/11/2025 1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners for challenging FIR No.116/2018 registered at Police Station-Roopwas, District-Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 494, 323 & 341 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the instant petition, petitioner No.1, who was husband of the complainant and petitioner No.2, who was mother-in-law of the complainant have expired. Hence, proceedings against them stand abated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 submits that the petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant and further submits that quite general allegations have been levelled in the FIR and no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioner No.3 in the entire FIR, so as to lead to any inference that the petitioner No.3 has committed any offence as alleged in FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 has relied upon the judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 735 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, while examining the cases of Sections 498A & 406, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon earlier judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 and observed that the allegation of harassment by the husband’s close relatives, who have been living at different places and never visited the place of the complainant would have an entirely different complexion. In such FIR, allegations are levelled with the ulterior motive to settle personal scores and grudges against the family members of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 further placed reliance on the judgment of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 756, where also the similar [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] matter, where relatives of the husband were implicated in a complaint under Section 498A IPC, containing exaggerated allegations of small incidents which were meant to implicate the entire family, FIR against the relatives of husband has been quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the present petition and submitted that even after death of husband and mother-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner No.3 (Devar) can be prosecuted for causing cruelty for demand of dowry. It has also been submitted that FIR cannot be considered as encyclopedia and even if specific allegations are not there against petitioner No.3 in FIR, yet such allegations can be proved during trial, therefore, seeking quashing of FIR at pre-mature stage is beyond the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I have heard rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not reflect even a whisper in the entire FIR levelling specific allegations against petitioner No.3, who was devar of the complainant. The FIR reveals that general and omnibus allegations of harassment and victimization for demand of dowry and criminal breach of trust have been levelled against all the accused persons named in the FIR. 9. Apart from the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner No.3, in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has observed in the following manner: [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] “(102) In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 S. 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 S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 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 S. 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] 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.” 10. In the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre 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 fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases." 11. It is a settled proposition of law that no one can be harassed and vexed to face trial pursuant to a frivolous FIR having no specific allegations against him. In most of the cases, FIR is lodged on account of marital discord and it is found that over implication is made by implicating the entire family members with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance irrespective of the fact that whether any particular member of the family was actually involved in the incident or not. 12. In the light of the fact that the FIR is totally silent with regard to assigning any overt act to petitioner No.3 as well as the [2025:RJ-JP:44547] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2047/2018] guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the FIR No.116/2018 registered at Police Station-Roopwas, District- Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 498A, 406, 494, 323 & 341 IPC against petitioner No.3. 13. 13. As per statements of learned counsel for the petitioners, on account of death of petitioners No.1 & 2, petition qua them stands abated. 14. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed qua petitioner No.3. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/42