The High Court's power to quash FIRs is limited and should only be exercised in rare cases where allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.121/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar (Jaipur East) Jaipur for the offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC.

2. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

3. It has been pointed out that during course of instant petition, investigation by the Police in the impugned FIR was continued and after investigation, petitioners No.2,3,4 & 5 have not been found involved in commission of offences under section 498A & 406 IPC, however, against petitioner No.1-husband charge sheet for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC has been filed on 25.09.2023. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance for such offences against petitioner No.1-husband and registered criminal case No.166/2023; State v. Abhishek Adlakha, which is pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan I, at the stage of charge arguments. Counsel for petitioners, by way of moving application dated 22.01.2024, placed a certified copy of charge sheet, challenging the same so also proceedings of criminal case pending against the petitioner No.1.

In view of above, the present petition to quash the impugned FIR qua petitioners No.2,3,4 & 5 has rendered infructuous and survives only by and on behalf of petitioner No.1.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that marriage between petitioner & non petitioner No.2-complainant was entered into on 28.06.2012, thereafter, from their wedlock non petitioner No.2 gave birth to one baby child on 03.04.2013, but later on, due to some matrimonial acrimony, non petitioner No.2 submitted a criminal complainant before the Court on 02.03.2017, which was sent for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and whereupon, an FIR No.59/2017 dated 28.04.2017 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (North) for offences under section 498A, 406, 323 & 341 IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It has been submitted that from the side of petitioner, initially notice under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was given, however thereafter, petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. Later on, both parties mutually settled their matrimonial dispute on 21.06.2017 and a written compromise was executed. The compromise dated 21.06.2017, allegedly executed between parties, has been placed on record as Annexure.2.

5. Counsel for petitioner contends that thereafter, both parties started to live together and out of their conjugal relationship, non petitioner No.2 gave birth to second daughter on 28.03.2018. It has been submitted that non petitioner No.2 is a lady of aggressive nature and she again entered into quarrel with petitioner and left matrimonial home along with her two daughters on 03.05.2022. Because of her ill behaviour and causing tease/harassment to her in-laws family, her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.2 herein, made a complainant against her on 04.05.2022, regarding domestic violence. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10.06.2022. After service of notices of divorce petition, non petitioner No.2 has again lodged impugned FIR No.121/2023 on 02.06.2023 for offences under section 498A & 406 IPC.

6. Counsel for petitioner argued that allegations made by the complainant in the impugned FIR about her harassment for demand of dowry, are prima facie false in the light of compromise dated 21.06.2017, entered into & executed between both parties. In the compromise, non petitioner No.2 had admitted that petitioner never made a demand of dowry nor from the side of non petitioner No.2 any dowry or cash, either at the time of marriage or thereafter, was given. It has been argued that in the complaint, allegations leveled against all petitioners are concocted and exaggerated; there are allegations against the petitioner No.1