Title of Judgement : Hidden , Case No. MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59501 of 2021 , as on Dated 29 January 2024, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Citing the lack of ‘specific’ allegations in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a case registered against the close relatives of the complainant’s husband for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti pointed out that the petitioners, i.e., mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, were not residing with the complainant at the relevant time. The complainant submitted that the petitioners used to visit her at the house where she lived along with her husband. During such visits, the petitioners allegedly demanded dowry from her to secure their financial interests.
Whereas court cited several findings and reveal that omnibus and bald allegations have been levelled by the complainant in First Information Report as well as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses against the present petitioners. Undisputedly, the petitioners were not residing with the complainant, and she was residing separately at Rachna nagar, therefore, in such an eventuality the complainant ought to have made specific allegations against the petitioners. As court didn’t find any specific allegations thus in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions, this Court finds that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is ill-founded and based on vague and equivocal allegations. All relatives were discharged from the charges framed by the trial court.
