Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Other, in which the Supreme Court has held that in

between the parties has been failed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is pressing present writ petition only on behalf of petitioner no.4 Zeenat Saba, unmarried sister of husband/petitioner no.1-Mohammad Shamshad and praise to withdraw the petition on the behalf of petitioner 1, 2 and 3.

4. Submission of counsel for petitioners is that there is no specific allegations against petitioner no.4 and the only line in the F.I.R. is that action may be taken against her also along with other persons as she has passed certain satire/comments against respondent no.4. The allegations are vague and therefore, no case against petitioner no.4 is made out.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Other, in which the Supreme Court has held that in such cases relatives of the husband should not be roped in unless there is specific allegation of their involvement in the crime is made out in the FIR. In paragraph No. 17, 18 and 21 observation, as under:- “17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498- AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1- 4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are leveled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offense. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”

6. Upon perusal of FIR and the submission made by learned counsel for parties there is no specific allegation in the FIR against the petitioner No. 4 that would warrant her prosecution. It seem that petitioner no. 4 has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case to exert undue pressure on the Petitioner no. 1.

7. The Apex Court in the case Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 391 has held as under “3. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offense is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent 2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co- accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offense is made out against Co-accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the FIR in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent 2 is only an afterthought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their criminal complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”

8. In the view of the above discussion and binding precedents, this court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceeding against the petitioner no. 4 would amount to abuse of process of law.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition concerning Petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.

10. The writ petition is allowed with respect to petitioner no .4. The FIR registered as Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, insofar as it related to Petitioner no. 4, is hereby quashed.

11. The investigating officer shall ensure that no coercive action is taken against petitioner no. 4 in connection with the impugned FIR. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Arti/- [Om Prakash Shukla,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

between the parties has been failed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is pressing present writ petition only on behalf of petitioner no.4 Zeenat Saba, unmarried sister of husband/petitioner no.1-Mohammad Shamshad and praise to withdraw the petition on the behalf of petitioner 1, 2 and 3.

4. Submission of counsel for petitioners is that there is no specific allegations against petitioner no.4 and the only line in the F.I.R. is that action may be taken against her also along with other persons as she has passed certain satire/comments against respondent no.4. The allegations are vague and therefore, no case against petitioner no.4 is made out.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Other, in which the Supreme Court has held that in such cases relatives of the husband should not be roped in unless there is specific allegation of their involvement in the crime is made out in the FIR. In paragraph No. 17, 18 and 21 observation, as under:- “17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498- AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1- 4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are leveled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offense. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”

6. Upon perusal of FIR and the submission made by learned counsel for parties there is no specific allegation in the FIR against the petitioner No. 4 that would warrant her prosecution. It seem that petitioner no. 4 has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case to exert undue pressure on the Petitioner no. 1.

7. The Apex Court in the case Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 391 has held as under “3. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offense is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent 2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co- accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offense is made out against Co-accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the FIR in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent 2 is only an afterthought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their criminal complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”

8. In the view of the above discussion and binding precedents, this court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceeding against the petitioner no. 4 would amount to abuse of process of law.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition concerning Petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.

10. The writ petition is allowed with respect to petitioner no .4. The FIR registered as Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, insofar as it related to Petitioner no. 4, is hereby quashed.

11. The investigating officer shall ensure that no coercive action is taken against petitioner no. 4 in connection with the impugned FIR. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Arti/- [Om Prakash Shukla,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]