ORDER
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code”) for quashing the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 401 of 1998 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore and the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4-12-1999 framing charge against them for the offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 3, Smt. Sandhya was married to Sanjay Maheshwari on 3-12-1991. On 4-3-1997 Ghanshyam Das, father of Sandhya, lodged a written report with the Superintendent of Police, Sehore, alleging that on 20-8-1996 he had submitted a written report to Police Kotwali, Sehore, but the police did not take any action against the accused persons and still her in-laws were harbouring illwill against her, therefore, he prayed stringent action against those persons. He annexed the photo copy of a written report purporting to be made on 20-8-1996.
3. In the aforesaid copy of the alleged report the complainant alleged that on 14-7-1994 he had received a phone call from Radhelal (father of Sanjay) that Sandhya was not behaving properly and he asked him to take Sandhya from Sagar. After 2-3 days Shrivallabh, the brother of Sandhya, went there and brought her to Sehore. After some time when Sandhya was sent to Sagar, her in-laws asked her to go back, whereupon she again came back to Sehore. On 4-12-1994 when he, his wife Sandhya and Vishnu went to Sagar to talk to Sandhya’s in-laws, father-in-law of Sandhya, assured them that they will talk to them when they would come to attend the marriage at Sehore. On 11-2-1994 Radhelal (father-in-law), Sanjay (husband) and Meera Devi (mother-in-law) came to Sehore and told him that since he (Ghanshyam) had given a house worth Rs. 10 lacs to his sister, he should also give a house at Sagar to them and unless he will give a house to them, they will not take Sandhya back to their house. On other occasions also this demand was repeated by the aforesaid persons.
4. The allegations of pressuring the complainant for the fulfillment of the demand made by Radhelal were made against petitioners viz., Kailash Chandra Maheshwari, Smt. Neeta w/o Kailash Chandra Maheshwari, Vinod Kumar Maheshwari, Smt. Madhu w/o Vinod Kumar Maheshwari, Anil Sabu, Smt. Hemant w/o Anil Sabu, Subhash Mundara and Smt. Gita Devi w/o Subhash Mundara. According to complainant, Kailash Chandra, who is the nephew of Radhelal and his wife Neeta had gone to Sehore on 27-2-1995 and had told them that unless the demand of the house made by Radhelal was fulfilled, they shall not take back Sandhya to Sagar. It was also mentioned in the report that Vinod, son-in-law of Radhelal and his wife Madhu, who lived at Indore and Anil Sabu, another son-in-law and his wife Hemant, who lived at Mumbai, also made phone calls to complainant suggesting him to fulfill the demand made by Radhelal. It was also alleged that in the year 1995 Smt. Gita, sister-in-law of Radhelal and her husband Subhash, who were at Uganda had also come to Sehore and had reiterated that the differences between them can be resolved only if the demand made by Radhelal is fulfilled. It was further alleged that on 14-7-1996 he along with Ramesh Tailor, Bhagchandra Jain, Vishnu Magrani and Mahesh Chand Jain had gone to Sagar to talk to Radhelal but he misbehaved with them, therefore, they returned back to Sehore.
5. On the basis of above report, Police Sehore registered a case at Crime No. 164 of 1997 under Section 498A of IPC against 12 accused persons including the petitioners. During investigation, in the year 1997, the statements of complainant Ghanshyam Das, Sandhya and other persons were recorded wherein it was also mentioned that on 10-7-1994 Meera (mother-in-law), Madhu (Sister-in-law) and Simla Devi (aunt) had caught hold of Sandhya and had sprinkled kerosene over her.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the relatives of Sanjay (husband) who resided separate and at different places like Indore, Mumbai and Uganda. They had no reason to harass Sandhya or to make any demand. There is no evidence about their subjecting Sandhya to any kind of cruelty or harassment. He submitted that from the report filed by the complainant itself it is apparent that Kailash Sabu and Neeta live separately at Sagar, Madhu lives with her husband Vinod at Indore, Hemant lives with her husband Anil at Mumbai and Gita and her husband Subhash at the relevant time were in Uganda. It is quite improbable that these persons will got to Sehore or make phone calls to complainant for fulfilling the demand of dowry made by father-in-law of Sandhya. He submitted that the malafide of the complainant is also visible from the fact that the report dated 4-3-1997 though was made to the Superintendent of Police annexing the photo copy of another report purporting to be made on 22-8-1996, yet there was no record with the police or any endorsement of police to that effect that any such report was, in fact, made to the police in past. This was deliberately and maliciously done because the husband viz., Sanjay had filed application for divorce in the Court against Sandhya on 22-8-1996. Summons of that application were issued whereby the complainant came to know about the steps taken by Sanjay. Being annoyed, with malafide intention, complainant created the report purporting to be made on 20-8-1996, which was not in existence at all and was created only to make the matter appear alive since a long time. Learned Counsel pointed out that the report of the incident was deliberately not lodged by Sandhya and was instead lodged by her father Ghanshyam Das. Though in the police statement an allegation of sprinkling kerosene over Sandhya was made against mother-in-law and Vimla and sister-in-law Madhu but the same was missing in the alleged report purporting to be submitted to police in the year 1996.
7. He submitted that prima facie the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, were not disclosed against the petitioners and the criminal proceedings were initiated against them malafidely for wreaking vengeance against them. He submitted that the order of framing the charges against the petitioners and continuation of the proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of the Court as such deserves to be quashed in the ends of justice.
8. Learned Counsel for the State controverting the arguments of learned Counsel of petitioners submitted that there is enough material on record to warrant the framing of charge against the petitioners. He submitted that Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence and material on record at this stage.
9. A careful scrutiny of the entire material on record makes it abundantly clear that the first information report was lodged by the complainant after the divorce petition was filed by Sanjay (husband) on 22-8-1996 and the summons were issued to Sandhya. The report on the basis of which the criminal case was registered, was received by the police on 12-3-1997. No fresh allegation was made against the petitioners except reminding that earlier a complaint was filed with the police on 20-8-1996. A copy of alleged written report dated 20-8-1996 was annexed with the later report. 20-8-1996 being the date just two days prior to 22-8-1996 on which the divorce petition was filed. On perusal of the copies of summons of the aforesaid divorce petition it is apparent that on 28-2-1997, the summons of Sandhya was returned unserved with the report of the process server that address was not correct. The copy of the report dated 20-8-1996 does not bear any endorsement by police and there is nothing on record to show that any such report was ever made to police.
10. On perusal of the entire record there appears no material to show that the petitioners had committed any act of cruelty towards Sandhya for meeting the demand made by Radhelal. The allegations that the petitioners had gone to Sehore or had asked Radhelal on telephone to fulfill the demand made by father- in-law of Sandhya, prima facie appear to be absurd and inherently improbable in the circumstances of case. At the relevant time the petitioners Madhu and her husband Vinod were living at Mumbai, Subhash and his wife Smt. Gita were at Uganda and Kailash and Neeta were living separate from Radhelal at Sagar.
11. It is also significant to note that the allegation advanced during the investigation that on 10-7-1994 petitioner Madhu along with others and sprinkled kerosene on Sandhya is conspicuously missing in the alleged written report dated 20-8-1996.
12. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Ors. that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record in order to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It has, further been held by the Supreme Court that the Court may for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it can not be expected even at that initial stage, to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
13. The facts and circumstances as discussed above clearly establish that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with a view to pressurize the husband and other family members of Sandhya, as Sanjay, the husband, had filed the divorce petition against her on 22-8-1996.
14. It is right, that inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and it would be improbable to analyze the case of complainant in the light of probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable, however, the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceeding is called for in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence, of which the cognizance has been taken, it is open for this Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
15. Considering the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.PC the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992(3) SCC (Cri) 426 indicated the illustrative categories of the cases in which such power may be exercised :
102 *** *** *** *** *** *** (5) where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of such no prudent person can never reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.... (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. On meticulous analysis of the case it is manifestly clear that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is frivolous and suffers with malaf-ide. The allegations made against the petitioners appear to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious.
17. A Court of law can not remain a silent spectator and can not be made a tool of gratifying personal vengeance of any party. Tendency to wreak vengeance against all the family members and relatives of husband has to be checked and deserves to be nipped in the bud. In cases where the facts available on record prima facie indicate at the stage of framing charge that criminal proceedings have been initiated by the wife or her family members for wreaking her vengeance against all the family members of her husband, the Trial Court should carefully examine the material on record and should not frame the charge against the persons, against whom the criminal proceeding prima facie appears to be maliciously instituted and the allegations being absurd and inherently improbable.
18. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the factual position clearly shows that the continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, power under Section 482 of Cr.PC should be exercised. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order of framing charges against the petitioners is set aside and the accused/petitioners are discharged.