Point of Law: Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2017, dated 15.2.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 320 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P.

2. Respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.4 on 28.9.2014. Their relationship got estranged and respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home in the year 2016. On 15.2.2017, on the complaint of respondent No.2, FIR No. 33 was registered against all the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. On completion of investigation, investigating agency submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the court of competent jurisdiction. The trial is pending against the petitioners.

3. On 31.12.2019 respondent No.2 and petitioner filed an application before the learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned Family Court recorded the statement of the parties on the day of first motion i.e. 31.12.2019. Respondent No.2 stated before the learned Family Court that her relationship with petitioner No.4 had become strained and since 2016, they were residing separately. She expressed her inability to live with petitioner No.4 under one roof. Respondent No.2 also categorically stated that she had already received her entire “Stridhan”. On second motion before the learned Family Court, respondent No.2 again made a statement to similar effect. It was also stated that she had no subsisting claim against petitioner No.4. Learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala passed the decree of divorce on mutual consent and the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.4 was dissolved vide decree dated 29.8.2020.

4. In the interregnum, on 17.1.2022, another compromise deed had also been recorded between the petitioners and respondent No.2 in which it was clearly mentioned that after filing of petition for divorce on mutual basis, her matrimonial relation with petitioner No.4 had come to an end. The parties had no ill-will remaining between themselves. Respondent No.2 wanted to marry some other person and the pendency of FIR No. 33 of 2017 could have effect on her new married life. On such basis, respondent No.2 had expressed her willingness to withdraw the prosecution against petitioners.

5. Petitioners have contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The allegations levelled against petitioners by respondent No.2 in FIR No. 33 of 2017 were totally baseless. Even after completion of investigation, no legal evidence could be collected by the investigating agency against petitioners. It is further contended that respondent No.2 resiled from her promise to withdraw the prosecution against petitioners with ulterior motive. She intends to extract more money from petitioners. It is further alleged by petitioners that respondent No.2 was interested to marry a person of her choice and for such reason she was not happy to reside with petitioner No.4. The decree of divorce was passed on 29.8.2020 and immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 married one Anil Kumar on 8.10.2020. She even gave a birth to a female child on 17.12.2020 from the loins of said Anil Kumar. The child was delivered by respondent No.2 within two months from the date of her marriage with Anil Kumar.

6. On the other, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that she was made to sign on blank papers by petitioner No.4 and his counsel and her “Stridhan” was still with the petitioners. It was further contended that petitioner No.4 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs