The court upheld that prima facie evidence existed for a valid marriage, necessitating a trial on allegations of dowry and fraud, dismissing the petition to quash related FIR.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226/227 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - The petition sought to quash FIR No. 131/2012 under multiple IPC sections regarding dowry demands and fraud claims by the Respondent - The Court found prima facie evidence supporting the validity of the marriage between the parties, thus dismissing the petition. (Paras 1, 22, 29, 32)

(B) Marriage Law - The court emphasized the necessity of proper ceremonies for marital validity and invoked precedents underscoring that mere claims cannot substitute substantial proof. The court also noted that the Petitioner could not establish a defense against the grave allegations in the FIR. (Paras 18, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging refusal to marry Respondent No.2, who claimed they were married on 20.05.2002. Respondent No.2 later married another man and subsequently accused the Petitioner of dowry harassment. The Petitioner claimed he was unmarried at that time and had married someone else later.

Findings of Court:
The court held there was sufficient prima facie evidence of a valid marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and that the allegations warranted a trial.

Issues: The court examined whether a valid marriage was established, the implications of subsequent marriages, and the legitimacy of the complaints lodged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the marriage was proven based on presented evidence, and therefore proceedings against the Petitioner could not be quashed. The ongoing matters necessitated further adjudication in a trial setting.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of alleged marriage pressurization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
2. implications of alleged marriage validity. (Para 10 , 14 , 18 , 26)
3. subsequent marriage during ongoing claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 23 , 27)
4. request to quash fir based on false claims. (Para 17 , 19 , 29)
5. court's affirmations on legal proceedings. (Para 22 , 31)
6. conclusion of the petition dismissal. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 131/2012, under Sections 498A/406/34/494 IPC, P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, and also for initiating appropriate enquiry against Respondent No.2 for deposing falsely in the proceedings and thereby abusing the process of law.

2. Brief facts as stated in the Petition, are that the Petitioner/Alok Kumar Das being a school friend of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, younger brother of Respondent No.2 used to visit their house till the year 2002-03. Respondent No.2 /Complainant, elder sister of Rajeev Ranjan, was about six years older to the Petitioner. It is claimed that till 2002, Respondent No.2 was unable to find a suitable match for marriage and she developed infatuation towards the Petitioner who was a young man and was working. The Petitioner, however, started ignoring Respondent No.2 since he considered her as his elder sister.

3. After few months, in the year 2002-03 she started pressurizing the Petitioner and his family for getting them married. Being in a state of shock, the family of the Petitioner and the Petitioner ignored these inappropriate demands of Respondent No.2 and refused to succumb to her pressure tactics. The Respondent No.2 then started asserting that she had got married to the Petitioner on 20.05.2002 on the basis of false and fabricated affidavits.

4. The true facts are that the Petitioner did not see her during the said period as he was busy in the preparation of the marriage of his sister which was solemnized on 22.05.2002, and was attended by the Respondent No.2 and her family members.

5. Thereafter, on 27.05.2003 Respondent No.2 forcibly came to the house of the Petitioner and created a scene and refused to leave unless the Petitioner agreed to marry her. She started screaming in the neighborhood. Sh. Shyama Charan Dass, father of the Petitioner, lodged a non-cognizable Complaint dated 28.05.2003 at P.S. Welcome, Delhi against the illegal activities of Respondent No.2 and also informed the Police about the dangerous and defamatory activities of Respondent No.2.

6. In order to avoid further hassles, Legal Notice dated 29.05.2003 was served upon the Respondent and her family members by the Petitioner through his counsel, telling Respondent No.2 to refrain from her illegal and unwanted activities.

7. A Reply dated 06.06.2003 was given by Respondent No.2 wherein it was stated that there was no intimacy of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner and definitely the question of marriage in future, does not arise. It also mentioned that Respondent No.2 was not in India and no further problem would be created by her.

8. On 03.08.2003, Petitioner was summoned at P.S. Usmanpur, Delhi on a Complaint filed by the Respondent. He as well as Respondent No.2 gave their statement to the police officials and it was concluded that no case was made out.

9. After Respondent No.2 did not succeed in her designs, she filed a Complaint in CAW Cell, Seelampur, Delhi under Section 498A IPC against the Petitioner who was summoned by CAW Cell and then he came to know that Respondent No.2 was claiming to have got married to the Petitioner in May, 2002.

10. The Petitioner then filed Civil Suit No.27/2003 for Declaration that he was single and unmarried and to permanently restrain Respondent No.2 from claiming herself to be the wife of the Petitioner. The suit was decreed by the learned Ci