Point of Law: Cruelty - Quash of Proceeding - There can be no doubt whatsoever, that allegations levelled against Appellants do not justify any inference, which would lead to conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in nature of Section 498-A and 506 of Penal Code - Proceedings initiated against petitioners are nothing but abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of proceedings arising out of criminal complaint, titled, Arti Thusoo vs. Sanjay Thusoo and Others under sections 498-A and 406 RPC pending before the court of Forest Magistrate, JMIC, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and order dated 06.04.2016, by virtue of which the learned trial court has issued process against the petitioners.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners are the senior citizens and have been wrongly arrayed as accused in the aforesaid complaint. It is stated that they are not in contact with their son, Sanjay Thusoo for the past more than fourteen years and are unaware of his whereabouts. Son of the petitioners had a job in Delhi and it was in 2002, that he came to the petitioners with a proposal of going abroad to take up a job in Australia but the petitioners did not agree as they did not want that their son to go out of the country. Due to this, there was exchange of words between the petitioners and their son and as a result which, he left the home in extreme anger and since then, the petitioners have lost contact with him. However, they have information that he is somewhere in Australia. It is also stated that that the respondent (wife of the son of the petitioners) in the aforesaid complaint, besides arraying her husband i.e. the son of the petitioners as accused, has also arrayed the petitioners as accused.

3. The learned trial court after recording the statement of the respondent as well as the witnesses, deemed it appropriate to order enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. and pursuant to that the SHO, Police Station, Bakshi Nagar submitted his report dated 05.04.2016, in which it was stated that the offences under sections 498-A and 323 RPC were proved.

4. The learned trial court ignored the said report and without mentioning the same in the order dated 06.04.2016 issued process against the petitioners.

5. Quashing of the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint as well as order dated 06.04.2016 have been sought on the following grounds:

(a) That assuming but not admitting the allegations made in the complaint to be true, the respondent has herself admitted that since 2005, she along with her child has been residing separately and the present complaint has been filed after 10 years.

(b) That assuming but not admitting the allegations made in the complaint to be true, section 538-B Cr.P.C. lays a clear bar on the taking of cognizance of an offence with punishment up to three years after a period of three years from the date of occurrence of the offence. In this case, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of alleged offences, which are both punishable with imprisonment for three years only and which admittedly have occurred more than 10 years ago.

(c) That assuming but not admitting the allegations made in the complaint to be true, the father of the respondent has clearly stated in the report filed by the SHO, Police Station, Bakshi Nagar under section 202 Cr.P.C. that no dowry had been given to the petitioners or to their son.

6. Mr. Navyug Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent is vague as the essential ingredients of offence under section 498-A as well as 406 RPC are missing. He further submitted that in the impugned complaint, no date, time, month and year of occurrence has been mentioned. He has further stated that as per own admission of the respondent, she has been residing separately since 2005 and the complaint having been filed by the respondent after 10 years, is hopelessly time barred.

7. On the contrary, Mr. Masood Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently argued that that the learned trial court has issued the process on the basis of the statements made by the respondent as well as witnesses and also pursuant to enquiry conducted by