The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of matrimonial offences, as well as the continuing nature of the offence under Section 406 IPC.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 390/2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at PS Chitranjan Park, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR got registered by respondent No. 2 at Delhi is a clear abuse of the process of law. Even accepting the averments in the complaint, no case for cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC is made out. The FIR discloses no allegations against the petitioners especially petitioners No. 3 and 4 except for casual references of their names. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 never resided with the respondent No. 2 at the matrimonial home. The matrimonial home of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was at Mumbai whereas petitioners No. 3 and 4 have been residents of Singapore from 2008-2014 and Hong Kong since 2014. The pleas taken by the petitioner for quashing of FIR are not in the nature of defence nor are disputed questions of facts. Since it is the admitted case of the respondent No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have not resided together since the year 2009, thus the allegations are at least 5 years prior to the registration of the FIR. FIR has been got registered after 5-6 years of the date of allegations and thus cognizance on a charge-sheet filed on such allegations would be barred by limitation as per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as M. Saravana Porselvi Vs. A.R. Chandrashekhar & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 520, Chandralekha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Swapnil & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567. Divorce proceedings are pending before the Mumbai Court filed by the petitioner No. 1 in June 2009 and till date respondent No. 2 has not claimed any istridhan in the said proceedings at Mumbai.

3. Though no affidavit in response to the petition has been filed by the respondent No. 2, she has filed an affidavit disclosing that the three petitioners did not appear in the Mediation proceedings referred to by this Court in the present petition, though the respondent No. 2 went all the way from Delhi to Mumbai.

4. The allegations of the respondent No. 2 in the above-noted FIR are as under:

“I Shilpika Kalra, on my complaint appeared in CAW Cell on 15.9.2014 at 11.30 a.m. My in-laws have not appeared in spite of being informed. I was married to Manish Kalra under Hindu Rights was arranged & on 28.7.2007 in Delhi Cantt. On the wedding my family & widow mother of Late Brig S II Grover gave cash & gift as per their standard & standard of my in-laws. After marriage I resided in J-1902 CR Park where my mother-in-law demanded my salary & mentioned she received all white goods for her marriage from her brother when she got married. My mother should set up my house. They also insulted me that their elder son was married Taj Hotels & my mother did not do the needful. All expensive Omega watches, designer gifts & cash gifted were not appreciated. After the marriage I took a transfer from DNA Newspaper Delhi & relocated to Mumbai to join my husband. He deserted me on June 10, 2009 & filed a frivolous petition for divorce. My Stridhan is with my mother-in-law Kamlesh Kalra, Avinash Kalra, Suman Kalra. My mother-in-law resides & is in the possession of my Stridhan. Mrs. Kamlesh Kalra (all responsible to influence my husband). Kindly also ask Mrs. Kamlesh Kalra to return my Stridhan. She is instrumental in influencing my husband to file a divorce petition. Next date 19.0.2014 at 11.00 AM. Sd/- Shilpika Kalra, J-1902, C.R. Park, New Delhi. 9920389955.”

5. The case of the petitioner is that Avinash Kalra and Suman Kalra have not been residing in Bombay and thus have no role to play. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed by the State keeping petitioners No. 1 and 2 in column No. 11 and petitioners No. 3 and 4 in column No. 12. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 who were kept in column No