The misuse of legal provisions under Section 498A IPC, particularly in retaliatory contexts, is impermissible, warranting quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the FIR No. 0936/2016 dated 27.12.2016 under Sections 498A /406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden.

2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No. 1/Rajan Bhatia and Petitioner No. 2/Krishna Bhatia are the parents-in-law and Petitioner No. 3/Saurav Bhatia is the Husband of the Complainant/Shannya Madan Bhatia/Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 got married to Petitioner No. 3 on 13.12.2002 according to Hindu customs and rites. Sourav Bhatia was pursuing his MBA in Singapore and Respondent No. 2 his wife joined him in Singapore on 10.10.2003, i.e. after about ten months. Since then, they have been residing together in Singapore. A Son was born from their wedlock on 11.02.2005, who has been brought up in Singapore. Since 07.10.2005 till 18.06.2014, Petitioner No. 3 got a permanent job in City Bank, Singapore.

3. Respondent No. 2 came back to India for delivery of the child in August, 2004 and went back to Singapore on 07.10.2005, when the child was about 08 months old and since then they have been staying in Singapore. Both Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 acquired a Permanent Residency in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

4. It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 3 on 10.10.2003, while they were staying in Singapore on their matrimonial home at West Coast Park at Kentish Lodge, Singapore, they shifted to another accommodation at Melville Park, Semei Street 1, Singapore from June, 2011 and thereafter, shifted to 30, Sturdee Road, 20-05, Kerrisdale, Singapore. These facts have been narrated by Respondent No. 2 in her Guardianship Petition as well as in FIR that her matrimonial home is in Singapore.

5. It is further detailed that the child started attending Halifax Montessori in 2007 and thereafter, joined NPS International School, Singapore in the year 2014. They also bought an Apartment on 08.06.2011 in Singapore in the joint name, which again establishes that their matrimonial home is in Singapore.

6. The Petitioners have submitted that on 24.04.2014, a fight was initiated by the Respondent No. 2 in Singapore and Petitioner No. 3/Husband was constrained to call the Cops and he moved to a separate rented accommodation along with his bag and baggage in Singapore, on 26.04.2014. Aggrieved by the cruel and torturous acts of the Respondent No. 2, he instituted a Suit for Divorce and for custody of the child in Family Court, Singapore. The Respondent No. 2 was duly served with the Notice of the Petition on 28.05.2014 by the Court Bailiff, in Singapore itself.

7. The father of Respondent No. 2 expired on 17.06.2014 and on the pretext of attending funeral of her father; Respondent No. 2 came back to India on 18.06.2014 by giving an undertaking to Petitioner No. 3 that she shall bring back the child to the jurisdiction of Singapore within a month’s time. Since the Divorce-cum-Custody Petition was pending in Singapore Court and the Passport of the minor child was with the Counsel for the Petitioner No. 3, an Undertaking was given by the Respondent No. 2 at the instance of Indian Embassy, Singapore. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2 engaged a Solicitor Firm and duly acquiesced to the proceedings in Singapore Court.

8. The Respondent No. 2, however, breached her Undertaking and after coming to India, filed a false and frivolous FIR No. 0160/2014 under Sections 354/506/509 IPC against the Petitioners, at Dehradun. She also instituted a Custody Petition under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Dehradun on 28.06.2014.

9. In the meanwhile, Singapore Family Court passed an interim judgment dated 30.07.2014 for dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2.

10. Also, in India, Dehradun Police completed the investigations in the FIR No. 0160/2014 and filed a Cancellation Report dated 31.07.2014