1. Petitioner No.1-Manav Mishra and respondent No.2- Aditi were married according to Hindu religious rites on December 01,2008. They started living in their matrimonial home at D-16, Lajpat Nagar-1,3rd Floor Delhi but with some matrimo#31;nial disputes which ultimately led to respondent No.2's coming back to Jammu on January 23,2010. She thereafter filed a Complaint with the learned Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax, Shops and Establishment Act, Jammu on June 11, 2011 impleading Manav Sharma- her husband, Sham Sunder Mishra-her father-in-law, Sharda Mishra-her mother-in-law, Mohit Mishra, Gourva Mishra and Aman Mishra-her brothers-in- law, accusing them of harassment, maltreatment and cru#31;elty.

2. Although the cruel treatment including physical assault is stated to have been given to Aditi at Delhi, however, it is indicated in paragraph No.8 of the Complaint, that even at Jammu the behaviour of the persons named hereinabove was cruel and they had reiterated their demand for cash, plot, shops and WagonR car even at Jammu.

3. The statement made by Aditi in support of her Complaint before the learned Magistrate on 11.07.2011, however, does not refer to any such cruel treatment or reiteration of demand for cash, plot, shops and WagonR at Jammu. It is alleged that all the accused beat her on January 24, 2010 and forcibly turned her out from the matrimonial home threatening that she may not come without dowry. She thereaf#31;ter came back to her paternal house without making any complaint against the accused because she apprehended threat to her life.

4. Learned Magistrate before whom respondent No.2 filed complaint post#31;poned issuance of process directing inquiry into the Complaint by Station House Officer, Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu. The Police found the petitioners involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 RFC.

5. On the basis of the statement of the complainant and the inquiry conducted by Station House officer, Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu, process was issued against the petitioners.

6. Aggrieved by the process issued against them by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of respondent's Com#31;plaint and the process issued thereon.

7. According to the petitioners, the marriage between Manav Mishra and Aditi was without any dowry but Aditi's mother would pressurize petitioner-Manav Mishra to separate from his parents threatening dire consequences in case her instructions for having separate home with her daughter were not carried out.

8. Aditi's mother is stated to have come to Delhi on January 23,2010 to get her daughter back home and, accordingly, they came to Jammu along with all the household articles gold and silver ornaments for which petitioner No.1 is stated to have lodged Complaint with Incharge Police Station, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 08.02.2010. Efforts made by petitioner No.1 to have reconciliation however failed despite there being an exparte decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which the petitioners had obtained from a Family Court at New Delhi.

9. Aditi is accused of having filed Complaint at Jammu to drag and harass petitioner No.1 and his family members in uncalled for litigation. It is pleaded that 'here being no specific allegation against the petitioners that may constitute an offence in terms of Section 498-A RFC, the Complaint was liable to be quashed.

10. The offence alleged by the respondent to have taken place at Delhi, Courts at Jammu are stated to have no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on records.

12. Provisions of Section 498-A RPC are often misused by one or the other spouse to settle their matrimonial disputes abusing the process of criminal Courts to pressurize and harass not only the other spouse but also his/her relations. The Complaint filed by Aditi, respondent No.2, who is stated to be a practicing Advo#31;cate, is one of such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document