The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice, and that continuing a criminal trial without specific allegations would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of the charge-sheet dated 06.06.2019 filed under Section 506/34 IPC in FIR No. 60/2019, P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the basic ingredients of Section 506 IPC are missing against the present petitioners.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered against Lakshay Kapoor, the son of the present petitioners, under Section 376/377/34 IPC on 15.03.2019. Initially, the FIR was lodged only against the said Lakshay Kapoor, however, after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed not only against Lakshay Kapoor, but also against his parents, i.e. the present petitioners under Section 506/34 IPC.

3. Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is not even an iota of allegation against the present petitioners in the FIR or the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the allegations, if any, are only against Lakshay Kapoor. Learned counsel further submits that neither any date nor any details of the alleged threats are mentioned anywhere in the charge-sheet. He submits that the present petitioners had lodged complaints on 26.03.2019 and 25.04.2019 against the complainant regarding threats given to them by the complainant. The learned counsel also invited attention of this Court to the statements of the relatives of the complainant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. He has specifically drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of brother, mother and another cousin of the complainant wherein not a single allegation has been levelled by them against the present petitioners. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao vs. State of A.P. (2007) Cri. L.J. 1204

(ii) Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741

(iii) Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad vs. State of A.P. and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 309

(iv) Pramod Goyal vs. State and Others, (2016) 3 JCC 1966

4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the charge against the petitioners is yet to be framed. She further submitted that in the FIR, the complainant has referred to the petitioners and their son collectively and as such the said allegations have to be in entirety against the present petitioners as well.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case records.

6. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are:

(i) On 15.03.2019, the complainant lodged an FIR against Lakshay Kapoor, the son of the present petitioners, under Sections 376/377/506 IPC. In the said FIR, the complainant alleged that while working in an MNC, she met the said Lakshay Kapoor.

(ii) In the marriage party of one of the colleagues, Lakshay Kapoor proposed to marry the complainant whereafter they constantly remained in touch on phone calls and messages. On her birthday, Lakshay Kapoor proposed to marry her, which proposal was accepted by her.

(iii) The relations between the complainant and the petitioners' son were also known to the family of both sides. On 08.10.2016, Lakshay established physical relations with her on account of his promise to marry.

(iv) Subsequently, on 31.12.2016, Lakshay Kapoor introduced the complainant to his brother and sister-in-law. They celebrated the new year whereafter, Lakshay and the complainant stayed the night in the hotel and they again established physical relations, though forcibly.

(v) The mother of Lakshay Kapoor, i.e. petitioner No. 1 tried to find out about the financial status of the complainant and on coming to know that the complainant's family will not be able to fulfil their wishes, the behavior of petitioner No. 1 changed towards the complainant.

(vi) On 13.10.2018, Lakshay's father, i.e. petitioner No.