PATNA, India, June 10 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on May 11:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Siwan in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018; G.R. No. 136 of 2018, whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Siwan has been pleased to take cognizance against the above named petitioners under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 504/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the brothers of the husband of O.P. No. 2, Petitioner No. 5 is the nephew of the husband of O.P. No. 2, Petitioners No. 6 and 7 are the Bhavis (sister-in-law) of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and Petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 are nieces of the husband of O.P. No. 2.

4. The allegation is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with one Rabish Kumar Singh on 05.06.2012. After two months demand of dowry was made.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the petitioners who are other than the husband of demand of dowry. Simple perusal of the FIR would show that the allegation is vague, general and omnibus to the core without any specific date, instance or mode and manner of torture or demand. He further relies upon the observation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083] and submitted that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 were implicated only only of their relations with husband of O.P. No. 2.

"(13) Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false Implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM2MDY1MyMyMDIyIzEjTg==-qOzvC7sqNV0=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.