IMPORTANT POINT
The need for specific and distinct allegations against the family members of the husband and the power of the High Court to entertain and act upon a petition to quash the FIR even when a charge-sheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ?Cr.P.C.?), praying for the quashing of FIR No. 0451/2017 registered at Police Station: Govindpuri, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ?IPC?), against, inter alia, the petitioners herein.

Background Facts:

2. The above FIR has been registered on the complaint of the respondent no.2, who is married to the nephew of petitioner no.1, that is, his sister?s son. In the FIR itself, it is recorded that respondent no.2 got married to the nephew of petitioner no.1, namely, Yogesh Gupta, on 23.04.1994. It is alleged that right from the date of the marriage, the relatives of Yogesh Gupta, including his mother and the petitioners herein, as also his other maternal uncle and his wife, had been harassing the respondent no.2 for dowry and had even given physical beatings to her.

3. Apart from the general allegations, the specific allegation against the petitioners is that on 18.07.2007, at about 9:00 PM, Mr. Yogesh Gupta along with petitioners and the mother-in-law of the complainant asked the complainant to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to them as dowry, and when the complainant refused to pay, the petitioner no.1 caught hold of the hands of the complainant from back and Mr. Yogesh Gupta gave merciless beating to the complainant. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 along with the mother-in-law of the complainant also gave 10-15 slaps on the face of the complainant, due to which the complainant fell unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she was again mercilessly beaten by Mr. Yogesh Gupta.

4. Interestingly, the FIR records that a complaint in this regard was made by the complainant to Police Station: Kalkaji on 20.07.2007. The complainant alleges that no action was taken on the said complaint. The complainant also states that a copy of this complaint is annexed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire Trial Court record, a copy of this alleged complaint is not found and has not been filed. This is not disputed by the learned APP and/or the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

5. The above FIR has been registered on a complaint dated 13.07.2017 filed by respondent no.2, that is, after 23 years of the marriage; the incident dated 18.07.2007 was also about 10 years before the complaint was filed.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW), where the original complaint was filed by respondent no.2, the petitioners were never called for any investigation/preliminary inquiry. Even when the FIR was registered on 09.11.2017, the petitioners were called only once by the Investigating Officer (?IO?), and in their statement, they denied having any role in the alleged offence.

7. He submits that the petitioners have always been residing separately from Mr. Yogesh Gupta and the complainant, and they have been dragged into this matter only because they are family members of Yogesh Gupta.

8. He further submits that in June 2017, the mother-in-law of the complainant had filed a civil suit seeking restraint on the complainant with respect to the property on which the mother-in-law claims a title. On 14.06.2017, the concerned Court had passed an order of status quo. The complaint was filed on 13.07.2017 as a counterblast to the said proceedings.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the entire case against the petitioners is only on the basis of the above complaint made by the complainant. Apart from the complainant, statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C of only the son of the complainant and two neighbors, have been recorded by the police before the filing of the charge-sheet. They have not stated anything against the petitioners herein.

10. He places reliance on the judgments of the Su