ORDER : This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.52/2024 registered at Police Station Stationganj, District Narsinghpur for offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant No.2 is father-in-law, applicant No.3 is mother-in-law and applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of respondent No.2. The FIR has been challenged on the ground that allegations leveled against all the applicants are omnibus in nature and no specific role has been assigned to anybody and there is unexplained delay of 4.5 months in lodging of FIR and impugned FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to the action of applicant No.1 in filing divorce petition. 3. According to the prosecution case, respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on the allegations that she got married to applicant No.1 on 27/06/2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Immediately after the marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started misbehaving with her and on trivial issues they were threatening that they would leave her. Applicant No.4, who is residing in Mumbai was also instigating the applicants No.1 and 2. When respondent No.2 got pregnant, then at the instance of applicant No.4, applicant No.1 had given certain pills as a result she sustained abortion. On the festival of Rakshabandhan, she was required to go to her parental home, however, her father-in-law and mother-in-law stated that she should bring an amount of Rupees Twenty Lacs and a vehicle, only then they would allow her to go to her parental home and applicant No.1 will also go to Narsinghpur only thereafter. When she refused to give money as well as vehicle, then her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started abusing her and also assaulted her. Thereafter, she informed her elder brother Vijay on phone and came back to her parental home on 04/09/2023 and since then, she is residing in her parental home. Because of demand of dowry, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband were treating her with mental and physical cruelty. Statement of complainant was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and identical allegations were made. Allegations against applicants No.1, 2 & 3 4. Because of demand of dowry, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband were treating her with mental and physical cruelty. Statement of complainant was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and identical allegations were made. Allegations against applicants No.1, 2 & 3 4. From the FIR, it is clear that respondent No.2 was allowed to stay in her matrimonial house for two & half months only as she got married on 27/06/2023 and she is residing separately from 04/09/2023. During this period of two & half months, there are specific allegations that applicant No.1 - Rishi Bajaj, applicant No.2 - Kishanlal Bajaj and applicant No.3 - Meera Bajaj were demanding Rupees Twenty Lacs and a vehicle and on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry, they were treating her with cruelty and not only they used to abuse her but they also assaulted her. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held as under:- “12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 551 , it was observed (SCC p. 553, paras 8-9): “8. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935 : (2000) 3 SCR 662 ] it was observed (SCC p. 217, para 5): “5. … A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the inlaws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 9. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 27, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604 and Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., (2011) 11 SCC 259 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 159.” 13. In the present case, the complaint is as follows: “Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18-11- 2009 with Sidharath Parakh s/o Manak Chand Parakh r/o Sarafa Bazar in front of Radha Krishna Market, Gwalior according to the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage my father had given gold and silver ornaments, cash amount and household goods according to his capacity. After the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by the members of the family. When on the second occasion I went to my matrimonial home, my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing me for not bringing the dowry and started saying that I should bring from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs 2,00,000 in cash and only then they would keep me in the house otherwise not. On account of this my husband also used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal, my mother Smt Prem Lata Oswal, uncle Ashok Rai Sharma and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time. On account of this my husband also used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal, my mother Smt Prem Lata Oswal, uncle Ashok Rai Sharma and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time. On 2-4-2010 the members of the family of my matrimonial home forcibly sent me to the house of my parents in Ganj Basoda along with my brother Deepak. They snatched my clothes and ornaments and kept with them. Since then till today my husband has been harassing me on the telephone and has not come to take me back. Being compelled, I have been moving this application before you. Sir, it is prayed that action be taken against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother-in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on account of demanding dowry. 14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.” 6. Considering the short duration of stay of respondent No.2 in her matrimonial house coupled with the specific allegations made against applicant No.1 - Rishi Bajaj, applicant No.2 - Kishanlal Bajaj and applicant No.3 - Meera Bajaj, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. 7. It is well established principle of law that legitimate prosecution should not be stifled in the mid-way and accordingly, application filed by applicant No.1 - Rishi Bajaj, applicant No.2 - Kishanlal Bajaj and applicant No.3 - Meera Bajaj, is hereby dismissed. Applicant No.4 - Manjula Bajaj 8. 7. It is well established principle of law that legitimate prosecution should not be stifled in the mid-way and accordingly, application filed by applicant No.1 - Rishi Bajaj, applicant No.2 - Kishanlal Bajaj and applicant No.3 - Meera Bajaj, is hereby dismissed. Applicant No.4 - Manjula Bajaj 8. In the FIR as well in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it has been specifically stated by the complainant that applicant No.4 is residing in Mumbai, whereas matrimonial house of respondent No.2 is situated in Shrinathpuram, District Kota (Rajasthan). The only allegation against applicant No.4 is that she was instigating the applicants No.1, 2 & 3 and at the instance of applicant No.4, her husband had given certain pills which resulted in her abortion. 9. When respondent No.2 got pregnant and when she suffered abortion, has not been clarified. Furthermore, even according to the FIR, pills were given by her husband. How respondent No.2 came to a conclusion that it was at the instance of applicant No.4, has not been clarified. When the applicant No.4, who is the resident of Mumbai, had instigated the applicants No.1, 2 & 3 has also not been clarified. 10. Although respondent No.2 had spent only two & half months in her matrimonial house but it is well established principle of law that in order to prosecute the near and dear relatives of husband of complainant, allegations must be specific and clear. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under: “In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that Respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of Respondent 2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B., (2015) 13 SCC 693 : has held as under:- “8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj [ (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935], this Court observed: (SCC p. 215, para 5) “5. … A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” The court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 9. In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand [ (2007) 15 SCC 415 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 539] it was observed: (SCC p. 419, para 14) “14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [ (2005) 2 SCC 388 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 511], etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other case.” * * * * * * 11. The court has to adopt a pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against the brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on the same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members.” 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as under:- "8. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members.” 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as under:- "8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3." 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Preeti Gupta Vs. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 etc. has held that for prosecuting near and dear relative of the husband of the complainant, the allegations must be specific and clear and the near and dear relatives cannot be prosecuted on the basis of vague, omnibus and general allegations. 15. If the allegations made against the applicant No.4 are tested on the anvil of law laid down by Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, then it is clear that the allegations made against applicant No.4 are not sufficient for compelling her to face the ordeal of criminal trial. 16. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.52/2024 registered at Police Station Stationganj, District Narsinghpur for offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and charge-sheet qua applicant No.4 - Manjula Bajaj, are hereby quashed. 17. So far as the prosecution of applicant No.1 - Rishi Bajaj, applicant No.2 - Kishanlal Bajaj and applicant No.3 - Meera Bajaj is concerned, the same shall continue. 18. Application filed by applicants No.1, 2 & 3 is hereby dismissed, whereas application filed by applicant No.4 is hereby allowed.