Point of Law: The dictum of law as pronounced from time to time is that High Courts, in appropriate cases, can quash criminal proceedings under Section 498 of IPC where allegations are vague, general and omnibus.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 2 of 2020, dated 05.01.2020, registered at Women Police Station, Solan, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC (for short, “the FIR”).

2. The basis of FIR is written complaint dated 28.12.2019 submitted by Respondent No.2 inter-alia alleging her ill-treatment at the hands of her in laws including the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the wife of Shri Raghav Aggarwal, who is brother of petitioner.

3. Petitioner has alleged false implication in the FIR. In is submitted that petitioner is working and residing in United States of America (USA). He had visited India for few days to attend the marriage of his brother Raghav Aggarwal, which was solemnised on 06.07.2018. On the date of marriage except for exchange of pleasantries, petitioner had no occasion to interact with respondent No.2. Petitioner had stayed at Hyderabad between 13.07.2018 to 27.07.2018 and during this period he had formal interaction with respondent No.2 as he had stayed at his brother's house. Petitioner thereafter left for USA on 29.07.2018 and thereafter has never visited India. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has levelled allegations against the petitioner which are general and vague. The omnibus allegations made against the petitioner have no basis. Except for the bald allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against petitioner, no evidence has been found against him till date. The FIR against petitioner is alleged to be motivated.

4. Respondent No.1-State in its reply has submitted that the written complaint No. PC/1028/SP was received in Women Police Station, Solan on 30.12.2019. The complaint contained allegations of harassment of respondent No.2 at the hands of Shri Raghav Aggarwal (husband), Shri Arvind Gupta (father-in-law), Smt. Nisha Gupta (mother-in-law) and petitioner (brother-in-law). Resultantly, FIR No. 2/2020 was registered on 05.01.2020. Investigation is stated to be underway. It is alleged that despite various efforts, the investigating agency has not been able to associate the petitioner and other accused persons in investigation.

5. Respondent No.2 has filed her separate reply. It is submitted on behalf of said respondent that the FIR was registered after thorough examination of written complaint and recording her statement. It is further submitted that the petitioner and other accused in the FIR have not joined the investigation. The petition is alleged to be abuse of process of law. Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the allegations levelled by her in the complaint and consequent FIR. She has admitted that petitioner had left India for USA on 29.08.2018. As per respondent No.2, the petitioner is intentionally and deliberately avoiding the joining investigation and the instant petition is also step in such direction.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record.

7. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though, this Court is vested with jurisdiction and powers under the aforesaid provisions of law to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but the same has to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors reported in (2018)3 SCC 104 has outlined the powers of this Court to quash the FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in following manner: -

“25. The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled.

26. This Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949) had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachu