The central legal point established is the need to prove the truthfulness and basis of complaints and FIR, and the consequences of filing false complaints and misusing the criminal justice system.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners viz., Dr. S.L. Dhawan, Ms. Urmil Rawal (daughter of Dr. S.L. Dhawan) and Sameer Rawal son of Ms. Urmil Rawal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying for quashing of FIR No. 699 of 1996 and to give directions to respondent No. 3 to stop the inquiry on the complaint of Ms. Meena Dhawan and to proceed against Mr. S.K. Dhawan and Ms. Meena Dhawan for lodging false reports.

2. Ms. Meena Dhawan and Mr. S.K. Dhawan were daughter-in-law and son of the petitioner No.1 (petitioner No1 died during pendency of instant writ petition). They lodged a complaint with Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. This complaint was sent for inquiry/investigation to the police. Ms. Meena Dhawan had also lodged a report with Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) against the three petitioners and an FIR No. 699 of 1996 was registered on the basis of this complaint under Section 406 of IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of this FIR.

3. In the FIR 699 of 1996 Ms. Meena Dhawan stated that she was married to Mr. S.K. Dhawan in November, 1975 and had started residing on the first floor of premises No. 45A/II, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law were also living in the same house. At the time of marriage, she had brought dowry articles (enumerated in her complaint). She stated that at the time of marriage, grand-parents of her husband were also living in the joint family. Her husband was the only son of his parents. The petitioner No.2 had obtained divorce from her husband and was living along with her son at the above premises. Thereafter Ms. Meena Dhawan made allegations regarding property and stated that civil suits were filed. She stated that Civil Court had granted an order for maintaining a status quo in respect of the property bearing No. 45A/2, Lajpat Nagar. However, the petitioners, despite status quo order, stopped her entry and entry of her husband and daughter into the house. They also did not allow her to take and remove items of Istridhan as well as goods belonging to her husband. She alleged that the petitioners were in illegal custody of her Istridhan and they dishonestly and malafidely not only retained her Istridhan but also put Istridhan to their own use. Since the three petitioners were having entrustment and custody and possession of her dowry articles and Istridhan, they were guilty of offence under Section 406 of IPC. She averred that the dowry articles were brought by her at the time of her marriage and were entrusted to the petitioners for safe custody and later on the accused persons/petitioners refused to return these dowry articles and Istridhan. Similar allegations were levelled against the petitioners in the criminal complaint lodged by respondents before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned MM directed for an inquiry and asked police to submit a report after investigation. A report was submitted by the police. In its report police stated that Dr. S.K. Dhawan wanted to grab the property of his father by legal and illegal means and he wanted to throw out his sister from the property by threatening her and terrorizing her. It was also stated that he was not on speaking terms with his father and sister. He has been filing baseless complaints and cases against his father and sister. Regarding entrustment, the investigation revealed that accused Sameer Rawal named by the complainant, was not even born at the time of her marriage.

5. Ms. Meena Dhawan was married in November 1975 and the petitioner Samir Rawal was born in November, 1976. The question of entrusting any Istridhan to Samir Rawal could not have arisen as he was not even born. But he has been made as one of the accused by the complainant Ms. Meena Dhawan in her complaint. The complaint qua Ms. Vrmil Rawal was blatantly false as no