who are the parents-in-law of the defacto complainant and their other sons about the harassment caused to her. However, they did not help the defacto complainant, instead, they also demanded jewels and stated that if she brings the jewels, they would let her live with her husband peacefully. She had also given a further statement on 15.11.2017 stating that on 29.04.2012 when she complained to her father-in-law and mother-in-law, they supported their son. In the further statement, the version is slightly different from the earlier statement. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that these contradictions per se cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. But the allegations are very vague and it is made generally as against both the parents and brothers of the husband of the defacto complainant. The allegations have to be specific and we cannot allow the Prosecution to continue merely on the basis of a single incident which is vague, insofar as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19349 of 2021 is concerned. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the couple were living abroad and there were differences between the husband and wife, they hardly lived in this petitioner's house and the entire prosecution is to wreak vengeance. Therefore, since the allegations against the father-in-law is vague and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet in C.C.No.96 of 2018, insofar as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19349 of 2021 is concerned, is liable to be quashed.
