Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
Pardeep Sirohi & Others - Appellants
Vs.
State & Others - Respondents
561-A Cr.P.C. No. 164 of 2016 & MP No. 01 of 2016
Decided On : 12-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Chopra, Mr. Shamas-Ud-Din Shaaz
The court emphasized the duty of the police to investigate the truthfulness of allegations and the cautious exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Section 561-A Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Sections 498-A/109 RPC - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 488 Cr.P.C. - Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498-A/109 RPC against them, alleging false and frivolous dowry allegations by the respondent. The respondent claimed harassment, torture, and mental trauma by the petitioners and sought justice through legal remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a cognizable offence had been made out, requiring police investigation. It emphasized that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to stifle legitimate proceedings and that the police have the duty to investigate the truthfulness of allegations.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of dowry harassment, mental and physical torture, and the quashing of the FIR under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of police investigation is not only to collect evidence against the accused but also to allow the accused to produce evidence to show their innocence. It emphasized that the court's inherent jurisdiction should be exercised with caution and cannot be used to examine the evidence or interfere with police investigation.
Final Decision: The petition seeking the quashing of the FIR was dismissed, and any interim stay was vacated.
1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.55/2016 dated 29.01.2016 registered at Police Station Rajouri under Section 498-A/109 RPC against the petitioner.
2. It is stated in the petition that the police of Police Station Rajouri registered an FIR against the petitioners on the false complaint filed by respondent No.3. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case as they have not done anything as alleged by the police in the FIR which has been registered on a vague and false complaint.
3. It is further stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.3 in the month of April, 2009 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies, and out of wedlock one child was born. Petitioner No.2 is the father of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3 is the sister of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of petitioner No.1. Immediately after the marriage, respondent No.3 showed her high headedness and arrogant behavior towards the petitioner No.1 and his parents. Respondent No.3 never showed love and affection towards petitioner No.1 and his family members. Respondent No.3 has left her matrimonial home in 2012 and refused to live with petitioner No.1 without any cause and reason, and started living in her parental house at Rajouri. The petitioners made best efforts to bring her back and would do all possible but respondent No.3 refused to come back to her matrimonial home. Respondent No.3 instead of coming back to her matrimonial house, she has filed a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri, against petitioner No.1 for the maintenance on 29.11.2012 and same has been decided ex-parte on 28.03.2014 in which direction was passed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3 and Rs.2,000/- per month to her child. Respondent No.3 has been residing separately for the last four years and in order to harass the petitioner and his family members she has filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 and his family members at Police Station Rajouri for the offence under Section 498-A/109 RPC. Respondent No.3 has also filed a petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of monthly maintenance granted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri, which is still pending.
4. In the petition, it is stated that petitioner No.1 solemnized the marriage with respondent No.3 in the year 2009 and now after the lapse of seven years, respondent No.3 has been leveling false and frivolous allegation of dowry on the petitioners which cannot sustain the test of law having no legs to stand upon. The police of Police Station Rajouri registered an FIR against the petitioners on a false complaint filed by respondent no.3. The said FIR is being challenged stating that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the petitioners. The allegations by respondent No.3 regarding dowry are untenable in the eye of law and petitioner No.1 and his family members never demanded any dowry at the time of marriage nor received any amount by way of dowry and never forced respondent No.3 to check her pregnancy test. The SHO Police Station Rajouri never bothered to ascertain these facts and just started harassing the petitioners. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, it would be an abuse of process of the Court, if the FIR impugned is allowed to sustain and the same is required to be set aside and quashed.
5. With the afore mentioned averments made in the petition, petitioners have prayed that the instant petition be allowed and the FIR impugned be quashed.
6. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent No.3 stating therein that in the instant case, FIR has been lodged which discloses prima facie commission of offence against the petitio
