The court's decision was influenced by the application of the guidelines for quashing of FIR as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of courts in exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 437/2019, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, South District, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint dated 06.12.2019 lodged by respondent no. 2 who had stated that marriage between her and petitioner’ son Ashad was solemnized on 21.09.2017, on which her father had spent around Rs. 7 lacs. It was alleged that next day onwards, the petitioner had started harassing her for bringing less dowry and articles of low quality and had also snatched away all her jewellery items. It was stated that a girl child was born out of the wedlock on 02.08.2018 and the entire expenses of the operation were borne by her parents. On the basis of the allegations levelled by respondent no. 2 in her complaint, the present FIR was registered under Sections 498A/406 of IPC against the petitioner and her son.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present FIR has been lodged on false and frivolous grounds and deserves to be quashed. It is also stated that there is no evidence on record against the present petitioner that she had ever ill-treated respondent no. 2 by demanding any dowry or economic help from her family. It is stated that the petitioner is about 60 years of age and she had always maintained cordial relations with the complainant. It is also stated that the FIR was lodged at the instigation of father, brother, mother and sister of the complainant since she herself, on 21.08.2012, had stated before SHO P.S. Govindpuri that she had no problem with her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for complainant state that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and it is not a fit case for quashing of FIR. It is stated that charge-sheet also stands filed against the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate and the contentions raised before this Court can be raised during trial.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions on behalf of both the parties and perused the material on record.

6. After hearing arguments and going through the case file, this Court is of the opinion that a perusal of the charge-sheet, FIR and the statements filed along with the same discloses that the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner that she had taken all the gold ornaments of the complainant on the next day of marriage and had harassed her about the quality of articles given as dowry. She had also allegedly demanded cash amount from complainant's father. There are also allegations of complainant being beaten up and not being given food due to which she had fallen seriously ill and was taken back by her brother to her parental home. The complainant had delivered a female child on 02.08.2018 and thereafter, co-accused had also refused to bring her back to the matrimonial home as she had given birth to a female child.

7. As far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for quashing of FIR in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, which are extracted herein-under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down a