The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR made out commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner, and therefore, the allegations must be necessarily investigated.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in connection with Crime No.12 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in connection with Crime No.12 of 2019, dated 22.11.2019, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an accused in Crime No.12 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 & 506(1) IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This case was registered for the offences said to have taken place in 2016. As a first plea, he submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false. Even assuming that the allegations are true, the offences alleged in the FIR registered are now barred by limitation. There is no possibility for the Court to take cognizance even if the final report is filed for the offences alleged in the FIR. De facto complainant and her daughter, who is the wife of petitioner are in the habit of giving repeated false complaints. The present complaint was given in continuation to the complaints from March 2018 and October 2018. This statement shows that they had given complaints repeatedly in 2018. Multiple complaints, especially, false complaints are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner''s wife had earlier given a complaint against the petitioner before the Kent police, UK. Finding that there is no sufficient evidence to support the complaint, the Kent police, UK, refused to charge the petitioner. Petitioner and his wife were living separately from the date when the complaint was given at Kent police, UK, by the petitioner''s wife. Therefore, there is no question of their living jointly and petitioner committing offences against his wife. Petitioner''s mother filed Crl.O.P.No.34594 of 2019 for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 and that was allowed by this Court. This Court has observed at several places that the allegations made in the FIR are not possible and probable and therefore, quashed the proceedings. Petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. Therefore the petition.

3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that FIR allegations make out a case of commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and the investigation is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that though the criminal proceeding against the petitioner''s mother was quashed in Crl.O.P.No.34594 of 2019, this Court confirmed the continuation of investigation against the petitioner. Petitioner was indulged in commission of offences of cruelty against the daughter of the defacto complainant. The offence under Section 498(A) IPC is a continuing offence and therefore, there is no question of this case being hit by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Petitioner uploaded obscene photograph of the defacto complainant''s daughter. In the light of the specific allegations made against the petitioner, it is necessary that the allegations must be properly investigated and final report to be filed.

5. Considered the rivals submissions and perused the records.

6. The gist of the FIR allegations are that marriage between petitioner and the defacto complainant''s daughter was celebrated on 10.07.2016. This is a second marriage to the defacto complainant''s daughter. After the marriage, defacto complainant''s daughter came to know that petitioner''s eyesight was poor and he could not be able to see properly at night. She has to clean the toilet at midnight as the petitioner made it dirty due to his eyesight issue. Petitioner''s family threatened defacto complainant''s daughter not to tell this to anyone. Defacto complainant''s daughter is permanently employed in UK and she took care of majority of the expenses. On her effort, petitioner went to UK t