TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y kindly be pleased to quash the FIR No. 003/2023, under Section 498 A I.P.C. and under Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1984 instituted on 07.01.2023 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, in the interest of justice. b. The petitioners also pray for the security of the petitioners and their extended family in the interest of justice. c. pass such other order/as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray." 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 5/complainant Radhika Gupta whose marriage have been solemnized on 24/11/2007 with the Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is mother-in-law of the complainant/ respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 is the elder brother, respondent No. 7 is the father and respondent No. 8 is the mother of the respondent No. 5/ complainant. After some time of marriage, dispute arose between the husband and wife and the Respondent No. 5 was started harassing and trying to extort petitioners, a complaint was filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... she has not attended the proceedings time to time and therefore the counseling could not be turned into a fruitful result. He also submits that the FIR No. 003/2023 does not qualify to come under Section 498A of IPC because the elements of Section 498A of IPC are not present in the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 5, and therefore, the FIR No. 003/2023 may be quashed. 5. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC 741], Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 567], Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2019 SCC OnLine SC 620] (Para-24), Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2018) 10 SCC 472], Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599] and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083]. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/State, would submit that after due investigation the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and prima-facie material c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report and it has been held that such power can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph 102 of the report, their Lordships laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. The principle of law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) has been followed recently by the Supreme Court in the matters of Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries [(2020) 4 SCC 162], Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2020) 13 SCC 435] and Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar. v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2019) 18 SCC 191] ". The Supreme Court in Google India Private Limited (supra), explained the scope of dictum of Bhajan Lal's case (supra) that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and "that too in the rarest of rare cases" as indicated in paragraph 103 therein of the report. 13. Having noticed the scope of interference by this Court in the petition relating to quashment of FIR/charge-sheet, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that in the impugned charge-sheet, four petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 498- A/34 of the IPC. 14. Chapter XXA of the IPC deals with offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] considered the issue of delay in lodging the complaint as well as role that has been ascribed to the accused therein and quashed the complaint holding the delay of two years in lodging FIR to be fatal and further held that no role has been ascribed to the petitioner/accused therein. It was observed as under:- "8. Further it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken. 9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition. apart from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother in law and Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the complaint was filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1." 18. Similarly, in the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the IPC being covered by category seven as enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) by holding as under:- "24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation again....