Judgment · High Court

(PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

Heard.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up forfinal disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

In the present application, filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.", for short), the prayer ismade for quashing of FIR No. 498 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023registered with police station Tumsar, District Bhandara for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2lodged the report against the present applicants alleging that afterher marriage on 02.05.2023, she was mentally and physicallytortured by the applicants and there was a demand of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lacs only) by them. It is further alleged that applicant

920.APL.161.2024 judge.odt 3 No.1 used to mercilessly beat respondent No.2 and she was alsothreatened for dire consequences if she lodged a complaint to thepolice. It is further alleged that on one occasion the applicant No.1tried to commit unnatural sex with respondent No.2. Accordingly, the offence came to be registered against the applicants, which issought to be quashed and set aside by the present application.

Ms Aditi Timade, learned counsel for the applicants, argued that general and vague allegations have been made in thecomplaint. There are no specific allegations or instances stated inthe complaint. She submits that the allegations against the in-lawsare of instigating the husband to physically and mentally torture therespondent No.2. She, therefore, submits that the husband and hisfamily members have been unnecessarily roped into the allegedoffence to harass and pressurize them. She accordingly prays forquashing of the FIR.

Mr Amit Chutke, learned APP for respondent No.1, onthe other hand, strongly opposed the application. He points outthat there are allegations which constitute the offence. Therefore,

920.APL.161.2024 judge.odt 4 he submits that as the allegations made in the report constitute theoffence as alleged, this is not a case for quashing of the FIR. Heaccordingly prays for dismissal of the present application.

We have perused the FIR and its contents in the lightof the rival submissions.

At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no allegationwhich would attract Section 377 of the IPC. The allegation which ismade against the husband is that he tried to commit unnatural sexwith the respondent No.2. Explanation to Section 377 makes itclear that penetration is must, which is not alleged. The allegationsare of an attempt to commit unnatural sex by the applicant. In thatview of the matter, we are of the opinion that no offence constitutesunder Section 377 of the IPC against any of the applicants.

Furthermore, the allegations as regards the torture andharassment of the respondent No.2 are concerned, except for theallegation against applicant No.1, the allegations against applicantNos. 2 to 4 are vague and general. The allegations against the

920.APL.161.2024 judge.odt 5 applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are mainly of instigating the applicant No.1 totorture respondent No.2.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others .v/s. State of Telangana &Another1 has observed thus:

25. A mere reference to the names of familymembers in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonialdispute, without specific allegations indicating their activeinvolvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that thereis often a tendency to implicate all the members of thehusband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of amatrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweepingaccusations unsupported by concrete evidence orparticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminalprosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases toprevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process andavoid unnecessary harassment of innocent familymembers. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, whoare the members of the family of appellant No.1 have beenliving in different cities and have not resided in thematrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminalprosecution and the same would be an abuse of the processof the law in the absence of specific allegations madeagainst each of them.

1(2024) 12 SCR 559

920.APL.161.2024 judge.odt 6 11. On perusal of the report, it is thus evident that there isa mere reference of the names of applicant Nos. 2 to 4, who are thefamily members of applicant No.1. It is apparent on the face of therecord that the complaint came to be lodged out of a matrimonialdispute and it appears that the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are madeaccused in the said complaint out of the tendency to implicate allthe members of husband’s family when domestic disputes arise outof matrimonial discord.

In the circumstances, such generalized and sweepingaccusations or particularised allegations unsupported by concreteevidence cannot be form the basis of criminal prosecution. Thus, we are of the opinion that no offence constitutes against applicantNos. 2 to 4 under Section 498-A of the IPC.

However, since there are allegations against applicantNo.1 and it prima facie constitutes the offence under Section 498-Aof the IPC, we are not inclined to entertain this application at the