Specific allegations of dowry-related harassment must be taken seriously, and an FIR cannot be quashed simply because it follows civil proceedings or appears retaliatory.

ORDER :

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.396/2019 registered at Police Station Harda, District Harda for the offence under sections 498-A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The applicant No.1 namely Nitish Umariya is husband, applicant No.2 Ashwini Umariya is elder brother-in-law, applicant No.3 Vaishali Umariya is wife of applicant No.2, applicant No.4 Sunita Umariya is mother-in-law whereas applicant No.5 Deen Dayal Umariya is father- in-law of respondent No.2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that earlier respondent no.2 had lodged an FIR against the applicant No.1 for offence under section 354D of IPC read with section 66C of the Information Technology Act on the allegations that the husband of the respondent No.2 is in habit of watching messages of her Facebook and also of Email Account. It was also alleged that husband of the respondent No.2 was using her Facebook id and Gmail id without her permission and consent. He was doing so by alleging that respondent No.2 is in relationship with other person and he has proof of the same. On 1.7.2018 husband of the respondent No.2 kept her mobile phone with him and introduced the pattern lock and also changed the Id of Facebook and Gmail account which was supported by applicant No.2 Ashwini Umaria, who also alleged that now they would not return the mobile and the said mobile shall be produced in the court. Although, the respondent No.2 tried to change the Id Password of Gmail and Facebook account but since recovery mobile number was changed by her husband, therefore, she could not change the Gmail and Facebook ID. Her husband has also kept her original documents with him. Accordingly, FIR was lodged with request to return of mobile phone, Gmail and Facebook account access as well as return of her mobile phone Oppo A57. It is submitted that the applicant No.1 has also filed an application under section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for restitution of conjugal rights by alleging that respondent No.2 is residing separately and she has left the house on 14.7.2018. However, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the application was later on withdrawn. Apart from the above case, multiple complaints were made by applicant No.1 before the police authorities in which it was alleged that respondent No.2 is having love affair with a boy, namely, Sarvesh Gupta. In spite of his best efforts to persuade the respondent No.2 to stop talking to the said boy, the respondent No.2 gave threats of falsely implicating the applicants. Finally, applicant No.1 filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and extra-marital relationship. On 20.8.2019 the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 appeared before the Family Court and conciliation took place immediately. After conciliation, on very next day, i.e. on 21.8.2019 respondent No.2 lodged an FIR for the offence under section 498-A, 506, 34 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigation has filed the charge-sheet.

3. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that applicants No.2 to 5 are the family members against whom omnibus, vague and general allegations have been leveled. FIR is a counter blast to the allegations and complaints made by the applicant No.1. Earlier also, an FIR under section 354D of IPC and section 66 of the I.T. Act was lodged in which no allegation of dowry was made and accordingly the impugned FIR dated 21.8.2019 is a by-product of deliberation and afterthought. All the applicants are not living together and even according to the complaint, the respondent No.2 is residing separately from the applicants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 may be quashed.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicants.

Whether the FIR discloses commission of offence by the app