State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or p

manufactured. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and statements of witnesses and submitted that no case against applicants is made out. So far applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, there is no specific allegations against them. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that the informant / opposite party no. 2 has made clear allegations that after her marriage with applicant no. 1, she was harassed by applicants on account of dowry. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred statements of informant and other witnesses and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

6. I have consider the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. It would be pertinent to mention that in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

9. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:- "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

33. 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 498A 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."

10. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

11. In K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

12. The above referred pronouncements of Apex Court show that there is tendency of implicating the relatives of husband in matrimonial dispute. It was held that false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. In this connection, a reference may also be made to case of Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (2022) 6 SCC 599.

13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that marriage of applicant no. 1 with opposite party no. 2 has taken place on

15.11.2018 as per Arya Samaj. After marriage applicant no. 1 has taken the opposite party no. 2 to Banglore, where he was working. She has made allegations that on 25.02.2019 when she along with applicant no. 1 came at her matrimonial home, she was assaulted by the accused persons. It appears that in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of opposite party no. 2, only general and vague allegations has been made that they have harassed the opposite party no. 2 on account of dowry. It was pointed out that applicant no. 4 Ravindra Vimal, who is brother-in-law (Devar) of opposite party no. 2, was working in Bank and applicant nos. 5 and 6 are married sisters-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2. Considering material on record, so far applicant no. 1 Ajit Vimal is concerned, in view of allegations made against him and material on record, prima facie case is made out against applicant no. 1. Hence, this application on behalf of applicant no. 1 is liable to be dismissed.

14. So far applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, as stated earlier, they are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in- law of the informant and no specific allegation has been made against them. As referred above, the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with applicant no. 1 has taken place as per Arya Samaj rituals. Considering nature of accusations and aforesaid position of law, the impugned proceedings in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6 are liable to be quashed.

15. In view of aforesaid, the impugned proceedings including charge sheet, qua applicant nos. 2 to 6, namely, Bhagwan Deen, Smt. Tejkali, Ravindra Vimal, Smt. Anuradha Vimal @ Smt. Aradhana Vimal and Smt. Sadhana Vimal are hereby quashed.

16. The application on behalf of applicant nos. 2 to 6 is allowed.

17. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant no. 1 Ajit Vimal is dismissed. The case against applicant no.1 would proceed further in accordance with law.

18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SK Srivastava SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

manufactured. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and statements of witnesses and submitted that no case against applicants is made out. So far applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, there is no specific allegations against them. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that the informant / opposite party no. 2 has made clear allegations that after her marriage with applicant no. 1, she was harassed by applicants on account of dowry. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred statements of informant and other witnesses and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

6. I have consider the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. It would be pertinent to mention that in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

9. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:- "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

33. 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 498A 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."

10. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

11. In K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

12. The above referred pronouncements of Apex Court show that there is tendency of implicating the relatives of husband in matrimonial dispute. It was held that false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. In this connection, a reference may also be made to case of Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (2022) 6 SCC 599.

13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that marriage of applicant no. 1 with opposite party no. 2 has taken place on

15.11.2018 as per Arya Samaj. After marriage applicant no. 1 has taken the opposite party no. 2 to Banglore, where he was working. She has made allegations that on 25.02.2019 when she along with applicant no. 1 came at her matrimonial home, she was assaulted by the accused persons. It appears that in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law of opposite party no. 2, only general and vague allegations has been made that they have harassed the opposite party no. 2 on account of dowry. It was pointed out that applicant no. 4 Ravindra Vimal, who is brother-in-law (Devar) of opposite party no. 2, was working in Bank and applicant nos. 5 and 6 are married sisters-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2. Considering material on record, so far applicant no. 1 Ajit Vimal is concerned, in view of allegations made against him and material on record, prima facie case is made out against applicant no. 1. Hence, this application on behalf of applicant no. 1 is liable to be dismissed.

14. So far applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, as stated earlier, they are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in- law of the informant and no specific allegation has been made against them. As referred above, the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with applicant no. 1 has taken place as per Arya Samaj rituals. Considering nature of accusations and aforesaid position of law, the impugned proceedings in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 6 are liable to be quashed.

15. In view of aforesaid, the impugned proceedings including charge sheet, qua applicant nos. 2 to 6, namely, Bhagwan Deen, Smt. Tejkali, Ravindra Vimal, Smt. Anuradha Vimal @ Smt. Aradhana Vimal and Smt. Sadhana Vimal are hereby quashed.

16. The application on behalf of applicant nos. 2 to 6 is allowed.

17. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant no. 1 Ajit Vimal is dismissed. The case against applicant no.1 would proceed further in accordance with law.

18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SK Srivastava SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad