ORDER

Amanullah, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 30.4.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6054 of 2019 by which the petition filed by the appellants under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) praying to quash First Information Report viz. Crime No. 139 of 2018 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh has been dismissed.

THE FACTUAL PRISM :

4. The appellants before us, respectively, are the sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent No.2. As per the complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the police, the appellants and the husband of the respondent No.2 were made accused for offences punishable under section 498-A and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). As per the allegations, the accused including the appellants and other family members demanded INR 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) cash and fifteen tolas gold ornaments. As per the complaint, the respondent No.2 was married to the son of the appellants No.2 & 3 on 3.2.2014 at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. As per the demands of the Accused-appellants, respondent No.2’s father gave about INR 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lacs) cash, fifteen tolas gold jewellery, a diamond ring worth INR 50,000/-, clothes worth INR 60,000/- for the husband, apart from household articles and overall INR 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) was spent in the marriage functions.

5. It is alleged that after marriage, the appellants started physically and mentally harassing respondent No.2 demanding dowry and started taunting her that her husband would have fetched INR 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) as dowry. It is stated that in April, 2014 the respondent No.2 got a job in Hyderabad, Telangana, where her husband was employed and she became pregnant there. It is further stated that the appellants and husband of respondent No.2 started abusing her that if a child was born, expenses would increase and the father of respondent No.2 had already cheated them. It is also alleged that the accused, inter alios, forcibly got an abortion performed on respondent No.2 at Hyderabad. And when the appellant No.1 was to be engaged, the appellants again started harassing her and in March, 2016 she was taken by her father to her parental home.

6. After moving to Hyderabad in April, 2014, respondent No.2 and her husband worked and lived at Hyderabad between April-September, 2014 and after that her husband left for London for an assignment, and she followed suit to London, but in December, 2014 only. Thereafter, the husband of respondent No.2 got a job in Sweden in March, 2015 and the wife/respondent No.2 joined him in May, 2015.

7. The respondent No.2 later filed a criminal case against her husband and the appellants. This prompted the appellants to move before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6054 of 2019 for quashing the same under section 482 of the Code.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS :

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that already a divorce case has been instituted in Sweden. It was submitted that respondent No.2 hardly lived at the matrimonial home as she was married on 3.2.2014 and in April, 2014 moved to Hyderabad and lived with her husband and also worked there. In March, 2015 respondent No.2’s husband moved to Sweden and in May, 2015, she too joined him in Sweden.

9. It was submitted that the appellants No.2 & 3 hardly stayed at the matrimonial home at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, as appellant No. 3 was working at Raigarh and living in company accommodation there with his wife (appellan