Oral Judgment

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being CR No. I- 78/2018 registered with Vaghdod Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 114 of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case as narrated in the complaint bereft of all details are to the effect that:-

          2.1 Based on application dated 19.12.2018 by the Complainant, an FIR came to be lodged interalia contending that her marriage took place about ten years ago with Amitkumar Mahendrabhai Jivanalal, resident of Devda, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana, and currently living on rent at E/301, Madhuvan Glory, near Shri Ram Chowk, Bapa Sitaram Chowk, New Naroda, Ahmedabad, and also at C/60, Tejendraprakash Society, Khodiyar Nagar, Ahmedabad. From the wedlock of her marriage, she has one son named Mitkumar, aged 9 years, who currently lives with her and her parents at Jangral, Taluka Saraswati.

          2.2 At the beginning of her marriage, she lived in a joint family with her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, and she used to occasionally visit her parental home during events. After the birth of her son, she continued to live at her matrimonial home with her husband and in-laws. However, her husband used to mentally and physically harass her on small issues and had doubts about her character. The harassment kept increasing day by day, and she was unable to tolerate it. In 2014, she left for her parents' house in Jangral, Taluka Saraswati.and after entering into a compromise made between complainant and her husband them on a Rs. 100/- stamp paper, and she was taken back to her matrimonial home. After that, she lived again with her husband and in-laws, but even then her husband continued to harass her mentally and physically. He used to say that her father had not given anything in dowry, and that if he had married someone else, he would have received a lot of money in dowry.

          2.3 It is further alleged that she informed her parents about this, but they used to convince her to continue her marriage to save her house, and she continued to live there while tolerating the harassment. Her mother-in-law, Ramilaben wife of Mahendrabhai Barot, used to provoke her husband and get her beaten over small issues. About one and a half years ago, her father-in-law Mahendrakumar passed away while she was staying there.

          2.4 About six months ago, she had gone to her parents' home for her brother's wedding, and since her father was ill, she stayed there for some time. Later, when she returned to her matrimonial home in Ahmedabad, her husband told her that when he had come for her brother's wedding, her father had not given him a gold chain, and he quarrelled with her and threw her out of the house.

          2.5 It is further alleged that they also took away her stridhan. He said that if she did not bring the money, she should not show her face to him again, and then he kicked her from the house. Thus, the FIR came to be lodged and since 08/06/2018, she has been living at her parents' house in Jangral.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hardik Bharhmbhat would submit that:-

          3.1 The present complaint is nothing but a counterblast of the complaint filed by the Petitioner No. 1, namely Amitbhai Mahendrabhai Barot, husband of the original complainant against the Original Complainant namely Yaminiben Daughter of Manharlal Girdharlal Barot and seven other persons who had come to his residence on 07.06.2018 and had quarreled with them and also inflicted injury with knife for which an FIR came to be lodged before the Krushnanagar Police Station for the offences under Section 323,324,294(b),143,147,148,149 of the IPC bearing FIR No. I/161/2018 and thus, argued to allow the present Petition.

          3.2 That this is for the first time in the span of 10 years, such allegations are being made which does not repose confidence in as much as except for the bare and vague allegations in the FIR and no complaint has been made by the wife prior thereto and it is for the first time after the complaint which was lodged by the Petitioner no. 1 against his wife and other relatives, the present complaint is filed for the aforementioned sections with keeping vengeance in mind as a counterblast.

          3.3 Learned Advocate would further submit that even otherwise, from the reading of the FIR, it transpires that there is no specific role attributed to the present petitioner, the FIR is bereft of any details and thus, argued to allow the present petition.

4. Per contra, Learned Advocate Mr. Hari K Brahmbhatt with Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah would jointly submit that on a bare reading of the FIR, the allegations are prima facie attracting Sections 498A, 323 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (1961), and merely because the wife had not made a complaint earlier in order to save the matrimonial life, it cannot be said that the complaint has been filed at a belated stage with an oblique motive as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the husband, and thus prayed to reject the petition.

5. The glaring aspect coming on record is that Petitioner No. 1, husband of Yaminiben, had lodged a complaint against Yaminiben, the Original Complainant herein, and seven other persons as stated hereinabove, for an incident that took place during the intervening night of 07.06.2018 to 08.06.2018, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the complainant Yaminiben is dated 08.06.2018, and was also lodged after a delay of six months, on 23.06.2018, based on an application dated 19.12.2018 before Vagdod Police Station. This clearly appears to be an afterthought, more particularly in view of the fact that the marital span is of 10 years and they have a son aged about 9 years. The factum of rejection of restitution of conjugal rights is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the complainant. Coupled with the fact that the allegations in the FIR are vague and bereft of any details as to when the husband inflicted physical injury, the allegations are omnibus and without attributing any specific role except vague assertions. The incident dated 08.06.2018 clearly appears to be a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the husband regarding the incident that took place during the intervening night of 07.06.2018 to 08.06.2018.

          5.1 The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana and Another, reported in 2024 INSC 953, more particularly in paragraph 25 has observed as follows:-

          "25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members......................."

          Thus, generalized and sweeping accusations are made against all the members of the husband's family, and that too also after sending notice, that the present complaint has been lodged for the first time after a span of almost 11 years from the date of the marriage

          5.3 Thus, from the reading of the FIR, it is evident that the complainant has roped in all the family members by making omnibus allegations without mentioning any specific incident, date, or overt act attributed to the present applicants with regard to the alleged cruelty. None of the applicants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance to the alleged offenses, and only general allegations in the FIR would lead to failure to ascertain the role played by each of the accused. Therefore, they do not satisfy the requirements necessary for continuation of criminal proceedings against them.

          5.4. The allegations, if on the face of it are taken, could be said to be arisen out of ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life and minor skirmishes between the parties. Thus, upon overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the charge sheet as well as the FIR, this Court is of the view that it would not be just to compel the applicants herein to undergo the rigors of criminal trial based on vague, general, and omnibus allegations and if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of process of law, falling within the four corners of the principle laid down in the case of State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors reported in 1992 SC AIR 604, more particularly paragraph 102.

6. In view of the above, Captioned Petition stands allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No. I-78/2018 registered with Vaghdod Police Station, Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 114 of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioner, stands quashed and set aside

7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.