Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Shri Shyam Shankar Mishra (applicant no.1), who is appearing in person on behalf of both the applicants, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record on Board. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, despite notice. Vide order dated 21.10.2022, this case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against respondent no.2.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet no.37 of 2013 dated 30.06.2013 in Criminal Case No.657 of 2013 (State vs. Vinay Mishra and Others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra.

3. It is apposite to mention that instant application has been preferred on behalf of mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband, however, vide order dated 10.09.2013 passed by this Court, application on behalf of the husband (applicant no.3) has been rejected. For remaining applicants no.1 and 2, instant application has been entertained and interim order has been granted.

4. Facts culled out from the record are that marriage of applicant no.3 (Vinay Mishra) has been solemnized with respondent no.2 (Manisha Mishra) on 17.06.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It appears that due to matrimonial bickering between the parties, respondent no.2 has moved an application dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure-1) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. levelling allegations of harassment for demand of dowry, thrashing, cheating and criminal intimidation against her husband and in-laws with an averment that since the date of marriage husband of respondent no.2 has refused to accept her as wife. Husband and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of respondent no.2, therefore, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant have throughout tortured her for additional dowry. On 17.02.2011, husband, mother-in-law, father-in-aw and two other persons came at the maternal house of respondent no.2 at Agra and again demanded one four wheeler and Rs.2 lakhs cash. While father of respondent no.2 has resisted, the present applicants have abused and man handled him. Having considered the contents of the complaint, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra has passed an order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure-2) directing the local police for registering an F.I.R., in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 27.08.2012, an F.I.R. No. NIL of 2012 under Section 498-A, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act has been registered. The Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has filed charge sheet no.37 of 2013 dated 30.06.2013 (Annexure-5) arraigning the present applicants for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, with an observation that initially F.I.R. was registered as NIL of 2012, however, in pursuance of the Government Order, it was received in Mahila Thana, Agra, where it has been registered as Case Crime No.97 of 2012. Before filing of complaint dated 27.07.2012, applicant no.3 (husband) has already moved an application dated 23.05.2011 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (in brevity ‘HM Act’) for restitution of conjugal rights (Annexure-9). In the aforesaid application under Section 9 of HM Act, respondent no.2 has filed her reply dated 04.03.2012 (Annexure-10) denying to live with her husband. In the meantime, she has filed an application dated 18.07.2012 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brevity ‘D.V. Act’). The Investigating Officer has submitted his spot inspection report dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure-12) with an observation that no one has authenticated the occurrence of offence, as mentioned in the F.I.R.

5. The applicant no.1 submits that false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the present applicants just to exert undue pressure so that applicant no.3 (husband) may withdraw his application under Section 9 of the HM Act. It is further submitted that since inception she was not willing to live with the applicants, which is evident from her reply dated 04.03.2012 filed in application under Section 9 of HM Act. It is further submitted that divorce petition under Section 13 of the HM Act has been decreed, after full contest, vide judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in O.S. No.1447 of 2013 (Vinay Mishra vs. Manish), which became final between the parties inasmuch as same has not been challenged before any competent court. The applicant no.1 has also emphasized the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, CourtNo.3, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by applicant no.3 assailing the order dated 20.06.2015 passed in proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been allowed and the order impugned passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.65 of 2012 has been quashed. It is further submitted respondent no.2 is Lecturer in a Degree College and is no more interested to keep any relations with her husband including his family members and preferred to live separately on her own terms.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by applicant no.1 (appearing in person) and supported the charge-sheet as well as criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants.

7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the applicant no.1 as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record on Board, it is manifested that respondent no.2 has moved application dated 27.07.2012 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. subsequent to the case filed by the husband under Section 9 of the HM Act dated 23.05.2011. In her complaint, which has been registered as an F.I.R. in pursuance of the order dated 27.08.2012, respondent no.2 has levelled omnibus allegations against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for harassment and demand of dowry referring their name in a very casual manner. It is her own case that since day one, she was unacceptable in the family of the present applicants. Her husband has refused to accept her as his wife. In this backdrop of allegations, respondent no.2 came with the case in the subsequent part of her complaint that she has throughout been harassed and tortured for demand of additional dowry.

8. While considering the conduct of both the parties, as mentioned in the complaint, judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, in O.S. No.1447 of 2013 under Section 13 of the HM Act is a relevant document to be examined. Perusal of judgment dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed along with the Stay Extension Application No.4 of 2023) reveals that respondent no.2 herself is not willing to live with her husband and in-laws. She has deliberately deserted their society. In the aforesaid proceeding under Section 13 of the HM Act, respondent no.2 has submitted his detailed objection and has been examined as DW-1. In deciding the issue no.1, learned court has discussed the relationship and conduct of the parties in detail and came to the conclusion that conduct of respondent no.2 is doubtful. Relevant paragraph at internal page no.10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below :-

“On the basis of above discussion and evidence available on record it is quite clear that after filing the petition U/S 9 of the HM Act by the petitioner and before filing WS against the petition OP initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and his parents. During the course of mediation she refused to live with the petitioner and was only interested to get back her ‘Stridhan’. The father of OP had also filed complaint against the petitioner and his parents U/Ss 406, 504, 506 IPC on 23.07.2013. The conduct and approach of the OP shows that she is not willing to live with the petitioner at any cost. Her only intention is to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi), Lodging of FIR and spate of complaints with all sorts of allegations by OP against the petitioner and his parents is indicative of the fact that there was no desire on the part of OP to continue the marital relations with the petitioner.

In spite of several criminal cases against the petitioner and his parents as well as allegations made in the WS filed against the present petition and against the petition filed U/s 9 of HM Act, the petitioner and his father as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively did not utter anything regarding bad conduct or negative behaviour of the OP. Even in his petition petitioner did not mention anything which may adversely affect the very reputation of the OP. Petitioner (PW-1) and his father (PW-2) specifically stated in their oral evidence that they were happy with the OP. There was no grievance against the OP. The conduct and behaviour of the OP was proper when she stayed with them. Therefore, the contents of the petition, conduct of the petitioner and his father and the approach of legal recourse taken by the petitioner show that he never consented for separation or to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end. Petitioner tried his best to get back the OP. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be factually or legally inferred that the conduct of the petitioner was neither proper nor conducive to restore the cohabitation with OP or to end the separation. Meaning thereby the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner was not against the required peaceful married life. The statements of the petitioner and his father as well as PW-3 show that petitioner and his parents treated the OP with due respect. They never blamed the OP for any activity nor they forced her to leave the job.”

9. The applicants came with the case that, to the best of their knowledge, judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed in O.S. No.1447 of 2017 has become final between the parties inasmuch as same has not been assailed by respondent no.2 before any court competent. Averment to this effect has been made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay extension application and in paragraph 4 of the subsequent affidavit dated 28.11.2023. During this period, respondent no.2 has moved an application dated 18.07.2012 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act (Annexure-11). Aforesaid case was registered as Complaint Case No.65 of 2012 (Manisha vs. Vinay Mishra). Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra has allowed the aforesaid complaint vide order dated 20.06.2015. On appeal being filed by applicant no.3 (husband), being Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2015, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Agra has allowed the said appeal and quashed the order dated 20.06.2015 passed in proceeding under Section 12 of D.V. Act. In paragraph 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay extension application, it is averred that order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the appellate court has become final between the parties inasmuch as same has not been assailed by respondent no.2 before any competent court. Affirmation to this effect has been reiterated by the applicants in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit dated 28.11.2023. In matrimonial cases, often it has been found that criminal proceedings are being instituted by the bride or her family members levelling omnibus allegations against the husband and his immediate relatives by referring their name in a very casual manner. This Court in a case, being Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.10036 of 2022 (Virendra Kumar Kushwaha & 3 Others vs. State of U.P. & Another), decided on 14.09.2022, has examined the justification of lodging a complaint case against all the family members of groom for harassment and demand of dowry. Relevant paragraph nos. 9 to 13 of the said judgment is quoted herein below :-

“9. Considering misuse of provisions relating to the matrimonial discord and significant increasement of the matrimonial litigation, Hon’ble Supreme Court at several occasions has tried to restrict the law relating to the matrimonial dispute on the ground of omnibus allegations against in-laws. In the matter of Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, [LQ/SC/2017/1051] Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed his concerned qua misuse of provisions as enunciated under Section 498-A IPC with an observation that Section 498-A IPC was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A IPC covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that this Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 [LQ/SC/2010/836] has tried to highlight the tendency in the present scenario to implicate the husband and all his immediate relatives in matrimonial litigation, therefore, it is expected that while dealing such matters, learned members of the Bar must discharged their duties to the best of their ability to ensure that social fabric, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. It has been observed that it is matter of common experience that most of the complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed on ‘spur of the moment’ over the matrimonial bickering.

11. Considering the several judgments of its Court in the matter of Khakashan Kausar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has shown his concerned over misuse of the provisions enunciated under Section 498-A IPC as well. The relevant paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing 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.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled 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 offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. ......................."."

12. In the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant has approached before Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that they have been illegally inculpated in the alleged offence on the basis of bald allegations and their names have been surfaced casually without attributing any incident. While deciding the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 in para no. 15 to 17 of it’s judgment, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that bald allegation made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest anxiety of the informant to rope in as many as of the husband’s relatives as possible. It has also been observed that neither FIR nor charge-sheet furnished legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the applicants. Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings against the married sister-in-law who undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) has quashed the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the brother-in-law and sister-inlaw on the ground that casual omnibus allegations have been made against the relatives of the husband. The relevant paragraph Nos. 19,20,23 and 24 is quoted here-under:

"19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

20. 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 [LQ/SC/2000/466] 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.

23. ................, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.

24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.”

10. Considering the ratio decided by the Apex Court, as discussed above, in the given circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that respondent no.2 did not come with clean hands while filing the complaint dated 27.07.2012 against her in-laws. It is her own cases that she was not acceptable in the family of her in-laws from the day one of the marriage, whereas, she had filed her objection dated 04.03.2012 to the proceeding under Section 9 of the HM Act dated 23.05.2011 denying her willingness to live with her husband. While deciding the divorce petition under Section 13 of the HM Act, learned Family Court has discussed the conduct of respondent no.2 and her in-laws in detail and came to the conclusion that respondent no.2 herself deserted her husband and she is not willing to live with him. In this backdrop of the case, allegations levelled by respondent no.2, as averred in the F.I.R., becomes doubtful and the genesis of the case becomes shaky. Conduct of respondent no.2, who is a Lecturer and earning independently, is also a matter of concern and, in light of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, prima facie, I do not find herself as victim having been subjected to harassment for demand of dowry. In the present scenario wherein divorce petition has been allowed and proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been rejected, I found no justification to keep the criminal proceeding under challenge to be continued on the whims of respondent no.2. Forcing the applicants no.1 and 2, who are in the last phase of their life, mechanically to face trial would not be befitting in the eyes of law and would amount a clear abuse of legal and judicial process inasmuch as in the complaint as it stands, in my opinion, no cognizable offence is made out against them under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act. Bonafides of the present applicants has already been acknowledged by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in its judgment dated 11.08.2017. F.I.R. lodged against them appears to be an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, said F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

11. Resultantly, instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.657 of 2013 (State vs. Vinay Mishra and Others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra, is hereby quashed.