Brief Facts
- The present criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC in Criminal Case No.1244/2005 arising out of FIR No.175/2005 registered at Police Station Samod, District Jaipur.
- The FIR was lodged by the father of respondent No.2 on 14.10.2005, nearly nine years after the marriage of respondent No.2 with the son of the petitioners, alleging cruelty and dowry demand of one lakh rupees and a Maruti car, and allegations of assault. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC; however, the trial Court found no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC and framed charges only under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC.
- During pendency of the petitions, subsequent events came on record, including dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Family Court on grounds of cruelty and desertion, wherein respondent No.2 admitted that dowry demands were made after five years of marriage and that she was residing separately from her in-laws prior to lodging of the FIR.
Issues
- Whether framing of charges under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC against parents-in-law and sister-in-law, on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, was sustainable?
- Whether the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges in light of subsequent admitted facts?
Held
- The Court while examining the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the principles governing quashing of charges, and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460], Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 741], Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2010 SCC 3363), Abhishek v. State of M.P. [(2023) LiveLaw (SC) 731], and Iqbal v. State of U.P. [(2023) 8 SCC 734], the Court held that allegations against the petitioners were general, vague and non-specific; that respondent No.2 was residing separately from the petitioners much prior to lodging of the FIR; and that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court. Consequently, the order framing charges and the criminal proceedings qua the petitioners were quashed.
- The Court observed that the FIR was lodged nearly nine years after the marriage and contained only general and omnibus allegations of cruelty. Except for the husband, no specific role or overt act was attributed to the petitioners. The Court held that vague and casual allegations, particularly against the mother-in-law, did not satisfy the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. It further noted a clear tendency of over-implication by roping in all family members of the husband. Holding that continuation of the proceedings under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of Court, the Court quashed the order framing charges and directed that the criminal proceedings be dropped insofar as the petitioners were concerned.
Relevant Para No.
- Paras 13 to 18 and 25 to 27