The court emphasized that the allegations must constitute the necessary ingredients of the offences under Section 498A IPC or 406 IPC, and the FIR must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 Cr.P.C.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 95/2012 registered against them at the instance of the respondent no. 2 at P.S. Deedwana for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant were married way back in the year 1965. Thereafter, the petitioner Samsudeen contracted a second marriage as per Muslim Customs & Usages in the year 1977. The complainant started living separately from him in the year 1990. He further submits that the parties never interacted after the year 1990. He further contends that ex-facie even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR impugned are considered to be true at the highest, then too the same does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. He thus prayed that the FIR impugned deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. They admitted that it was true that the complainant is living separately from the petitioner no. 1 for the last more than 20 years, however, they urged that the complainant filed an application for maintenance against the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioners threatened the complainant to withdraw the said proceedings and thus, they have committed the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the FIR impugned and the documents placed on record.

6. Admittedly, the parties have separated more than 20 years back. For a proper appreciation of the case, the portion of the statement of the complainant wherein she has tried to bring the case within limitation, is reproduced hereunder:-

"eSaus xksyh fcLdqV dh ,d nqdku lkYM jksM ij dj j[kh gSA ftlls esjk thou ;kiu dj jgh FkhA esjh mez dkQh gks xbZ] blfy, eSaus esjs ifr ls dgk fd eq>s ftUnxh Hkj rax ijs'kku fd;k vc esjh mez dkQh gks xbZ eq>s jksVh pkfg,] rks mlus Li"V euk dj fn;k rc eSaus dksVZ esa Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, nkok fd;kA ftl ij esjs ifr esjs ls ukjkt gks x;s vkSj esjs ifr lelqn~hu] gccu o mlds nksuksa yM+ds tkdhj vgen o 'kkdhj vgen us dgk fd dksVZ ls nkok mBk ysuk ugha rks vPNk ugha gksxkA rFkk dgk fd jkthukek fy[kdj ns ns] rc eSaus muls dgk fd eq>s esjk L=h/ku yksVk nks rkfd eSa esjk xqtkjk dj ldaw rks lHkh us esjs lkFk ekjihV dhA bl izdkj esjs ifr lelqn~hu] mudh nwljh iRuh gchcu rFkk mlds iq= 'kkdhj vgen o tkdhj vgen us eq>s 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld ;kruk, nh ,oa esjs vkHkw"k.k gM+i x;sA"

7. From a bare perusal of the said statement, this Court is of the opinion that ex-facie the allegations levelled in the statement do not constitute the necessary ingredients of the offences under Section 498A I.P.C. or 406 I.P.C. There is no allegation of the complainant that she has ever entrusted any of her stridhan articles to the petitioners. Admittedly, the complainant is living apart from the petitioners from last more than 20 years. The FIR impugned, apart from being a gross abuse of process of Court, is also filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant misc. petition succeeds and the F.I.R. No. 95/2012 registered at P.S. Deedwana and all subsequent proceedings thereupon qua the petitioners are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed.

*******