( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Criminal Procedure Code.), petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No. 265/1996, p. S. Tilak Marg, under Section 498-A/406indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings thereon and for quashing of the order dated 24/9/1996 issuing proclamation under Section 82 Criminal Procedure Code. , and the order dated 4/10/1996, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this petition are; on 7/3/1996, Ms. Bina lodged a report alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 14/2/1994, who was employed as an electrician at Muscut in oman. After the marriage when her husband went abroad, she started living with family of the elder brother of her husband; her husband after going abroad did not write any letter to her nor sent any money, to meet the household expenses. One day, elder brother of her husband complained, to her father that in the marriage they were not given scooter, colour T. V. etc. She was told that the petitioner would be coming in-the month of April, 1996, to attend the marriage of his niece and that in december, 1995, she had gone to stay with her parents, as her mother was unwell. On 24/2/1996, when she came back to stay at her in-law s house, hoping that her husband would come in April 1996, she was told that during her absence, her husband had come to India and stayed in India with them and his sisters at Jalandhar and at Garima garden (U. P.) and had gone back. Then she realised that her in-laws, in conspiracy with her husband, wanted to get rid of her. Her sister-in-law told her that the petitioner did not like her. On the basis of the above allegations the above noted FIR was registered. Petitioner did not participate in the. {investigation. After investigations, challan was filed against the petitioner and his other relations and cognizance was taken; petitioner did not appear despite warrants. He was declared a Proclaimed Offender. Trial proceeded against the relations of the petitioner and vide order dated 18/5/. 1999, the trial court discharged them and file was consigned to the record room to be revived as and when he was arrested, when the petitioner came from abroad, he was arrested at the Airport. Thereafter, the above petition was filed for quashing of the FIR and the order declaring him a Proclaimed Offender.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner firstly, argued that assuming the allegations made in the FIR to be true, no offence under Section 498-A and 406indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Learned APP for State vehemently argued that a new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty by explanation (a) to section 498-AIndian Penal Code and any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to his life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of a woman), amounts to "cruelty" and that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. At that stage, learned counsel for petitioner argued that he does not press this point any further. In any case, this is a question of fact which cannot be decided at this stage.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner next argued that in the FIR itself office address and telephone numbers of the petitioner of Muscut are mentioned. No effort was made by the trial court to serve the petitioner at the address given in the FIR either after challan was filed or during investigations. As the petitioner was in Muscut, summons were never served on him. Order dated 24/9/1996, issuing proclamation under Section 82 Criminal Procedure Code. against the petitioner and the order dated 4/10/1996 declaring him a proclaimed offender are thus not sustainable. There appears to be merit in the contention. Section 82 of the criminal Procedure Code reads as under:- 82. Proclamation for person absconding.- (1) If any Court has reason to belie