The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

CRL.M.A. 5358/2023 (delay of 02 days)

1. By this application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 02 days in re-filing the present petition. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 02 days in re-filing the present petition stands condoned.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL. M.C. 1385/2023

3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C..) for quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR bearing No. 0720/2021 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on 29.10.2021 on the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no. 2 whereby it was stated that complainant had married the petitioner on 25.11.2007 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and due to constant physical abuse by the petitioner after the solemnisation of marriage, matrimonial disputes had arisen between the parties, and the matter had once been settled in mediation in December, 2012. She had alleged that on night of 17/18.10.2021, the petitioner had attacked her with a heavy steel pot from the kitchen and had hit her with it on her head and foot, and thereafter had also hit her with a lathi which had resulted in severe bruises and swelling on many of her body parts. Following this, the complainant had contacted her brother who had sent one of his acquaintances to take her from her matrimonial house. While she was on her way in the car, it is alleged that the petitioner had stopped her car and had brutally attacked her with a lathi, kicked and punched her till she had fallen on the ground and then had continued to throttle her with her chunni and had threatened to kill her. It was stated that subsequently, she had been taken to GTB Hospital where her MLC was prepared.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matrimonial disputes are pending between the petitioner and complainant, and the present FIR has been lodged at her behest in order to falsely implicate him and for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner. It is stated that the photographs taken from the CCTV footage would show that complainant was fit and fine on the day when she claims to have been beaten by the petitioner. It is further stated that there is a delay of 10 days in lodging FIR and no offence under Sections 323/341/506 of IPC is disclosed from a bare reading of FIR. It is also stated that a false MLC has been procured by the complainant since her brothers are doctors by profession and had previously worked in GTB Hospital. It is argued that since the entire FIR is absurd and the incidents alleged therein are inherently improbable, the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for respondent, argues that no case for quashing of FIR is made out since there are specific allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner. It is stated that she has given details of the alleged incidents which disclose commission of cognizable offences and her case is supported by her MLC.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both sides and has gone through the case file.

8. Since the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR under Section 438 Cr.P.C., it will be relevant to discuss the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard 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 rep