Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Guneet Singh Dhingra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of NCT Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(Cr) 1844 of 2021 & Cr.M.A. 15271 of 2021, Cr.M.A. 20019 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC - [IPC] - [498A, 406, 323, 506, 34] - The court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 685/2021 under section 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC. The court found that the subsequent FIR was not an abuse of process of law and was not frivolous or vexatious. The FIR recorded incidents of assault inflicted upon the respondent post 2019, which were not mentioned in the previous complaint. The court also noted that the nature of allegations described in the FIR were continuing in nature, and hence, the FIR was not barred by limitation under section 468 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 685/2021 under section 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC, alleging that it was an abuse of process of law and barred by limitation under section 468 CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent FIR was not an abuse of process of law and was not frivolous or vexatious. The FIR recorded incidents of assault inflicted upon the respondent post 2019, which were not mentioned in the previous complaint. The court also noted that the nature of allegations described in the FIR were continuing in nature, and hence, the FIR was not barred by limitation under section 468 CrPC.
Issues: Abuse of process of law, limitation under section 468 CrPC
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent FIR was not an abuse of process of law and was not frivolous or vexatious. The FIR recorded incidents of assault inflicted upon the respondent post 2019, which were not mentioned in the previous complaint. The nature of allegations described in the FIR were continuing in nature, and hence, the FIR was not barred by limitation under section 468 CrPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 685/2021 under section 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC, along with all pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 685/2021 under section 498A/406/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") dated 06.08.2021 registered at Police Station - Rajouri Garden.
2. As per the petitioners, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are:
3. The petitioner No. 1 (husband) and the complainant i.e. Respondent No.2 were married on 29.06.2003 as per Hindu rites and customs at Greater Kailash Gurudwara, New Delhi. The marriage was consummated and parties were blessed with a daughter on 22.11.2004 and another daughter on 31.01.2006.
4. The parties first stayed at D-1041, First Floor, New Friends Colony i.e. house belonging to petitioner No. 2 (father of petitioner No. 1).
5. In 2004, petitioner No. 2 sold his house at New Friends Colony and purchased property E-7, Second Floor, Front Side, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and all the parties resided there.
6. It is stated that in July 2015, petitioner No. 1 was diagnosed with multiple fibrous dysplasia and that thereafter the Respondent No.2 started treating the petitioners with cruelty, harsh and unsupportive behaviour.
7. From 22.08.2015, respondent no. 2 started living in a separate room in the same house with her two minor daughters.
8. It is further stated that after making several attempts for reconciliation, the Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in July 2016.
9. In the meanwhile, Petitioners received a summon from Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court whereby they were informed that the Respondent No. 2 had filed a case under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "DV Act") in June 2016.
10. It is stated that in the said case, no allegations were made for commission of offences under section 406 IPC and Respondent No. 2 had primarily sought protection order that she should not be dispossessed from her matrimonial house at Rajouri Garden.
11. Petitioner No. 2 filed a suit in August 2016 seeking possession of the premises with Respondent No. 2. The suit filed by Petitioner No. 2 was decreed on 10.07.2018 and Respondent No. 2 was directed to vacate the house at Rajouri Garden. In an appeal filed by Respondent No.2, the said order has been stayed.
12. On 28.12.2016, Respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint before Police Station - Rajouri Garden for commission of offence under section 406 IPC. The said complaint was closed after inquiry as the allegations were unsubstantiated.
13. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed Complaint Case No. 8314/2019 under section 200 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") for offences under section 406 and 34 IPC. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, Respondent No. 2 filed another complaint before CAW Cell on 11.01.2021 which culminated into registration of the impugned FIR 685/2021 dated 06.08.2021 under section 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in the said FIR.
14. The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR 685/2021 on the following grounds:
A. FIR 685/2021 being registered on a second complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is based on the same allegations, facts as well as the same causes of action, upon which complaint case no. 8314/2019 was registered.
B. Investigation in the FIR 685/2021 is barred by limitation in view of section 468 CrPC and thus, is an abuse of the process of law.
C. The FIR is an afterthought to harass the petitioners as Respondent No.2 had not made any allegations for commission of offences inter- alia punishable under section 406 IPC in her previous complaint under the provisions of DV Act.
D. The petitioner relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Samta Naidu v. State of M.P., (2020)5 SCC 378 wherein it was held as under:
"16. As against the facts in Shivshankar [Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012)1 SCC 130: (2012)1 SCC (Cri) 513], the present
The subsequent FIR was not an abuse of process of law and was not frivolous or vexatious. The nature of allegations described in the FIR were continuing in nature, and hence, the FIR was not barred b....
Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes do not sustain a criminal complaint; specificity in accusations is required to avoid abuse of legal process.
The court affirmed that a pending police investigation does not bar subsequent complaints on similar allegations, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court can quash FIRs against individuals named in dowry harassment cases when allegations are general, vague, and lack specificity, preventing abuse of the legal process.
In 498A matrimonial cases, quash proceedings against relatives on vague/general allegations lacking specific roles, especially with FIR delay, to curb family over-implication and process abuse.
The High Court's power to quash FIRs is limited and should only be exercised in rare cases where allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
