( 1 ) MR-RAJ Kumar Khanna. a practising lawyer of this Court has sought for the quashing of the FIR no. 146/99 registered at Police Station Naraina, under section 498a/406/34 Indian Penal Code, (In short Indian Penal Code, 1860) against him and his family members at the instance of his daughter-in-law Ms. Inderj it Kaur Sidhu, respondent No. 5 another practising lawyer of this Court.

( 2 ) SON ,of the petitioner Manoj Kumar is also a practising lawyer of this Court. He got married to inderjit Kaur Sidhu on 22/09/1996 according to hindu rites at Gurudwara in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. After the marriage the newly married couple started living with the petitioner in his apartment. Relations between newly married couple became strained. According to petitioner, respondent No. 5 did not subscribe to the view points and values of petitioner and his family- She was adamant and not interested to live with her husband in the family of her husband. She left the matrimonial home on 5/09/1997 informing her husband that she would never come back. . Son of the petitioner filed a petition for divorce. Along with this petition Manoj also filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu marriage Act attaching list of articles left by respondent No. 5. The said petition was listed on 26/05/1999. Summon on that petition was ordered to be issued. It is further averred that respondent No. 5 on becoming aware of Manoj Kumar s filing of a petition of divorce, fabricated a complaint not only against her husband, but implicated all family members of the petitioner with oblique motives and as a retaliation to the divorce proceedings initiated by Manoj Kumar. Respondent No. 5 filed a well thought out complaint so that all members of petitioner s family could be implicated. The complaint dated 9/07/1999 was lodged with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West district, Vasant Vihar I. E. respondent No. 2. The said complaint was registered on 9/07/1999 itself under section 498a/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Naraina. After the registration of the case, SI Nirmal Sharma, respondent No. 4 along with respondent No. 5 raided the apartment of the petitioner at 9. 30 A. M. on 12/07/1999. At that time the petitioner was about to leave his house in order to attend his cases in the High court. Entire house of the petitioner was ransacked, every article stored in trunks and/or in wooden diwans and almirahs were pulled out. Each and every drawer and filing rack of his office was ransacked. Ms. Inderjit kaur removed the sarees and gold jewellery of petitioner s wife claiming those to be hers. Police accordingly seized even the articles belonging to petitioner s wife. Inderjit Kaur not only got seized sarees and gold ornaments but removed letters, greeting cards which she had written to her husband during the period she stayed away from her husband. Those letters, greeting cards when produce would show that she was all complements for petitioner and his wife. Police in connivance with Inderjit Kaur took away photographs and a diary that contained notes of the outings made and places visited by Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 5. The object of conducting the raid was to remove documentary evidence from the house of the petitioner which would have otherwise proved thair innocence and falsity of the allegations made by respondent No. 5 in her complaint dated 9/07/1999. Protest was raised by the petitioner and his wife that the articles like letters, photos, diary and greeting cards could not form "stridhan" hence these could not be seized. But police in particular respondent No. 4 in connivance with respondent No. 5 brushed aside the protests of the petitioner. Illegally and forcibly police permitted respondent No. 5 to remove those letters, greeting cards, diary and photographs. Petitioner insisted signing the seizure memo. Respondent No. 4 forced by petitioner allowed him to counter sign the letters, greeting cards, photos and the diar