Point of Law: If allegations leading to criminal prosecution prima facie do not disclose, then power under section 482 CrPC can be exercised

JUDGMENT :

1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No.117/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar and the entire proceedings in furtherance of the same, for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 313 & 377 IPC against the present petitioners.

3. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1842/2020 has been preferred by Komal Narang (hereinafter also referred to as ‘petitioner-husband’), who is husband of complainant/respondent No.2-Shefali (hereinafter also referred to as ‘complainant-wife’). S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.503/2020 has been preferred by Manju Bala - mother-in-law of the complainant - and Shyamlal Narang - father-in-law of the complainant - (hereinafter also referred to as ‘in-laws’).

4. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the present petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife got married, as per the Hindu rituals, on 13.12.2015 at Hanumangarh. The couple thereafter, moved to Bangkok (Thailand) and stayed there together for some time. However, thereafter, matrimonial conflict arose between them, which led to lodging of the present FIR bearing No.117/2019 dated 01.06.2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Sriganganagar, District Srigangangagar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 313 & 377 IPC, quashing whereof has been sought in the present petitions.

5. Mr. Hardev Singh Sidhu Kharlia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia, for the petitioners has made submissions pertaining to both the present petitions filed on behalf of husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, of the complainant/respondent No.2.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR itself, the offence against the present petitioner-husband is not made out.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the offence is also not made out against the old aged and ill parents of the complainant’s husband, and the impugned FIR was lodged only with a view to harass them.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the role of the petitioners (in-laws of the complainant) cannot be said to be such, which can suggest that they were the perpetrators of the allegations concerned, as they were residing at Hanumangarh, whereas the complete matrimony in question was admittedly spent at Bangkok (Thailand), except for certain intermittent visits of the complainant-wife to her matrimonial home at Hanumangarh.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that on a bare reading of the chats and the conversation between the petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife, it is clear that until there was matrimonial harmony, there were no allegations; however, as soon as the colour of such harmony changed, the allegations in question erupted retrospectively.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has, in relation to the case of the present petitioners (in-laws of the complainant), drawn the attention of this Court towards the guidelines as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; GV Rao Vs. LHV Prasad & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693; and Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3869, to contend that as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said cases, in matrimonial cases, where there is a quarrel between husband and wife, the innocent parents and family members, who have no role in the concerned incident, should not be arrayed as accused persons, and the proceedings against them ought to be quashed and set aside. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter, has submitted that the case of the present petitioners (in-laws of the complaina