The delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for discharge in matrimonial offences. The power to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No. 35/18 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They also pray for quashing of the consequential proceeding bearing RCT No. 8/2019 pending before JMFC, Sagar.

2. According to the case, on the basis of a complaint made by complainant/respondent No. 2, the police has registered a case under the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and one Rajesh Balmiki, husband of respondent No. 2. It is mentioned in the FIR that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized with Rajesh Balmiki on 15.05.2017. The family members of the respondent have given sufficient articles at the time of marriage. The respondent was living with the petitioners in joint family. She further mentioned that after the ceremony of first Bidai , the petitioner No. 1 (mother in law) started taunting her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. She further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 abused her and used to starve her. Further, when she made a complaint of petitioner No. 1 to her father-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 2, they along with husband Rajesh scuffled with her. Thereafter her sister in law and brother in law (Jeth- Jethani) i.e. petitioner No. 3 & 4 came there and told her to bring rupees 10 lakh. She alleged that all the petitioners committed marpeet with her. She also alleged against her husband for demand of dowry and torture. She stated that on 07.07.2018, the petitioners made a conspiracy with her husband to kill her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that they never demanded any dowry from the respondent No. 2 and her family members. He further submits that according to respondent No. 2, last incident was occurred on 07.07.2018 but the complaint was lodged on 04.12.2018, after the period of five months. The respondent No. 2 has not given any satisfactory explanation in this regard. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR, are afterthoughts and concocted. He further argued that the respondent No. 2 herself stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioners started torturing her but she never lodged any FIR or complaint prior to the FIR in question. He stated that respondent No. 2 is a rude woman and she was making pressure on the petitioners to send her husband at her parental house to live separately. Her husband was not ready so she implicated all the family members in this false case. There is also contradiction in the police statements of the witnesses. He further submits that petitioners No. 3 and 4 reside separately from the other accused and respondent No. 2, even then they have been implicated in the case. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are old age persons, moreover, petitioner No. 1 is a Government servant, hence, just to create pressure on account of her revenge, the respondent No. 2 made them as accused. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are also living separately and same is indicated from their complaint dated 25.07.2018 filed before the SP Sagar. Further, there is no independent witness in the case. With the aforesaid submission, he prays for allowing this petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the some judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for respondent No. 1/State as well and counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the petition submitting that there is sufficient material available in the case to prosecute the petitioners. The complainant has specifically alleged against all the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, hence, FIR may not be quashed at this stage. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the offences are related to matrimonial cases and are continuing offences, hence, no question of delay in lodging the FIR,