The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and proximity in time for establishing 'cruelty' under Section 498-A of the IPC, and the importance of fair investigation and the consequences of freezing bank accounts without prima facie evidence of involvement in a cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) :

1. With consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioners aged 80 and 75 years respectively, who are the parents-in-law of respondent No.2 have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the First Information Report No.152 of 2020 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station, for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under:-

The respondent No.2 and Deepak, the adopted son of the petitioners were school friends and they continued their friendship beyond schooling days. Deepak pursued his career in Hotel Management and is employed in Dubai, whereas respondent No.2 is a professional dancer. Their friendship eventually turned into love and they decided to enter into matrimonial ties. The father of the respondent no.2 did not approve of the relationship initially but later relented as his wife supported the decision of their daughter. The respondent No.2 has stated that Deepak had told her before the marriage that he was the adopted son of the petitioners. Her parents came to know that the lady working for the petitioners was the biological mother of Deepak, however, it was too late to cancel the wedding since the invitation cards were already distributed and other arrangements were already made.

4. The engagement ceremony of respondent No.2 and the son of the petitioner was held on 17/05/2018. The respondent No.2 claims that petitioner No.2 had gifted to her gold necklace, earrings and bracelets, whereas her father gifted Deepak a gold chain of 100 gms, a family heirloom and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioner No.2 took back the gold ornaments given to her and did not return the same.

5. The marriage of respondent No.2 and Deepak was solemnized on 28/05/2018. Respondent No.2 claims that her father gave her diamond jewelry worth Rs.65,00,000/-. A day after the wedding respondent No.2 and Deepak went to Bali, Indonesia and returned to Mumbai after 10 days. Respondent No.2 stayed in her matrimonial home for about a month. The respondent no.2 resided with her parents after her husband went to Dubai. She later joined him at Dubai and whenever she returned to Mumbai, she stayed at her parental home.

6. Respondent No.2 claims that during her stay in the matrimonial home, the petitioner No.2 would taunt and harass her over trivial issues. She did not allow her to touch the refrigerator and gave her leftover food. She has also alleged that petitioner no.1 would look at her with a smirk on his face. He would comment that her father had not given her enough and that he should bear all her expenses.

7. Respondent No.2 leveled several allegations against her husband and alleged that he would constantly quarrel with her and subject her to physical and mental cruelty during her stay in Dubai. He sent her to Mumbai on 07/05/2019 and later persuaded her not to come to Dubai on the pretext that he had lost his job and his residence visa had expired. Respondent No.2 claimed that she was informed by her friend that her husband was living with a Russian lady.

8. In November 2019, respondent No.2 and her father went to Dubai and with the assistance of a Court Official collected some of her belongings. She has alleged that her husband did not return her jewelry and other valuable articles. She alleged that her father had given her diamond jewelry worth Rs.1,10,00,000/- and the petitioners had given her jewelry worth Rs.1,32,00,000/-. She claims that her husband - Deepak Dalal and the petitioners have retained the said jewelry. Hence on 26/09/2020, she lodged the FIR against her husband and the petitioners, pursuant to which the aforesaid crime came to be registered.

9. The petitioners filed this petition to quash the FIR on the ground that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence against them. It is contended that the