The court emphasized the misuse of Section 498-A IPC in matrimonial disputes, ruling that inordinate delays in filing FIRs can indicate false implications, warranting quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the Crime No.233 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, District – Indore.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 Rishika Godha, whose marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 on 21.05.2013. According to the petitioners, after the marriage, the respondent No.2 wife resided with the petitioner No.1 at Delhi till 2015, and thereafter she went back to her parents’ house at Khargone and has been residing there only since then. A legal notice dated 29.05.2017, was also served by the respondent no.2 on the petitioner No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights, and its reply was also sent by the petitioner No.1 on 03.09.2017. On 11.06.2020, the petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, and subsequently, the decree of divorce has also been passed in favour of the petitioner No.1 vide judgement and decree dated 05.09.2023.

4] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the FIR dated 07.12.2021, omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner No.1 and his parents, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are well educated as the petitioner No.1 is an Excise Officer, whereas petitioner No.2 is his mother and petitioner No.3 is the father, who is a businessman. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a perusal of the FIR itself would reveal that it has been lodged on 07.12.2021, in respect of the offence which allegedly took place between 21.05.2015 and 07.12.2021. Thus, it is submitted that, admittedly, the FIR was hopelessly delayed and was filed only to falsely implicate the petitioners as even in the FIR, the complainant has mentioned that her husband has already filed a divorce case in the Family Court. It is thus submitted by Shri Godha that only with a view to wreck vengeance, the FIR has been lodged after more than six years and six months, falsely accusing that the petitioners were demanding dowry worth Rs.50 lakhs from the complainant.

5] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgement passed by the Family Court in the divorce matter wherein, the divorce petition was filed on 11.06.2020, and after the evidence was led by the parties, the Family Court has held that the complainant wife has abandoned the petitioner No.1 without any justifiable reasons since last two years. It is submitted that prior to the aforesaid date, the respondent No.2 was already residing separately since 2015 and the Family Court has also come to a conclusion that the respondent No.2’s behavior towards the petitioner no.1 was one of cruelty. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR and the consequent proceedings be quashed.

6] Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to a matrimonial site in which the respondent No.2/complainant has already given her profile.

7] In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon certain decisions in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 142 Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6545 of 2020), dated 08.02.2022; Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalra & Ors. reported as 2020 (4) JKJ 176; and Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in Criminal Revision No.521 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021.

8] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.

9] None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite service of notice and there is no reply filed.

10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11] From the perusal of the record, it is found that the