The court emphasized that the veracity of defense materials cannot be examined at the stage of quashing the FIR and that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly. It also highlighted that it is not permissible to quash an FIR at its nascent stage when there has been no progress in the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard.

2. By filing this criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2, which is registered as Dispur PS Case No. 671/2022 under section 498A of the IPC.

3. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are related as husband and wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an officer of the Assam Police and is currently posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Guwahati.

4. The FIR contains long narration of events which allegedly took place on 18.03.2022. It would suffice to mention that as per the FIR, she saw the petitioner's vehicle outside a restaurant and when the informant entered there, she found the petitioner enjoying a chat with a lady and she prepared a video recording. All the three walked out of the restaurant and the respondent no. 2 allegedly sat inside the car of the petitioner, leaving the minor child and the maid behind. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 then went to the house of the younger brother of the petitioner, and it is alleged that the petitioner refused to pick up their child and maid. On reaching the house of the brother, the respondent no. 2 saw her parents-in-law as well as her brother-in-law behaved badly with her and asked her to go and the petitioner and his brother left in the vehicle, leaving the petitioner stranded on road and therefore, she ran after the vehicle, but the petitioner's brother caught hold of her hand and pushed her, and as a result, she had suffered injury. The respondent no. 2 then called a police officer's wife, who came and picked her up and provided medical treatment and dropped her at her aunt's place. In the meanwhile their minor son with maid and a lady reached there at around midnight at 12.00 hours. As she was ill, the FIR was lodged after two days. The said FIR has been registered as Dispur PS Case No. 671/2022 under section 498A of the IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read over the contents of the FIR and has submitted that even if the FIR is read as a whole, no case was made out for prosecuting the petitioner under section 498A of the IPC. By referring to the statements made in the instant petition, it has been submitted that since marriage, by her omissions and actions, the respondent no. 2 has caused immense physical and mental pain, agony and other suffering to the petitioner and thus, it is not the respondent no. 2, but the petitioner, who has been suffering cruelty and torture. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 2 does not take care of their minor child. Moreover, it was submitted that on 18.06.2021 at about 7 : 30 pm., the respondent no. 2 had snatched the service pistol of the petitioner, and had attempted to kill him and their minor son. Therefore, the petitioner had informed the Officer-in-Charge of Bhagaduttapur Police Outpost regarding the incident, which was recorded in G.D.E. It was submitted that immediately after the incident, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home and took shelter in the home of his younger brother, but the respondent no. 2 disturbed him there, as such, he had shifted to a guest house. It was submitted that on 24.03.2022, the petitioner had also lodged an FIR about the incidents which had occurred on 18.03.2022, which was registered as Dispur PS Case No. 679/2022.

6. It was submitted that even if the narration contained in the FIR was accepted to be gospel truth, then also no case for cruelty under section 498A IPC has been made out. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz.,

(i) Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,

(ii) Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619,

(iii) State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582,

(iv) Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466,

(v) Swapnil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567.

7.