Criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC should be quashed when the FIR contains only general, omnibus allegations against the husband's family and is filed as a counterblast to matrimonial litigation, especially where a divorce decree on grounds of cruelty has already been granted.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr.M.P.S.Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Sameer Oraon, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may quash the impugned FIR dated 03.08.2021 (Ann, A-11) registered as Crime No. 64/2021 lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg District Durg by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the applicants u/S. 498-A/34 of IPC and its consequences, in the interest of justice.”

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 28.04.2016 at Bhilai as per Hindu rites. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the elder brother and sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1. Soon after marriage, respondent No. 2 behaved cruelly and left the matrimonial home on 02.06.2016. She briefly returned between 25.10.2016 and 11.11.2016. Thus, she stayed with petitioner No. 1 for less than two months in total. On 11.02.2017, respondent No. 2 visited petitioner No. 1’s workplace in Delhi without intimation, causing mental stress. Due to her conduct, petitioner No. 1 suffered psychiatric illness and was hospitalized from 21.05.2017 to 16.06.2017. Since then, the parties have been living separately. Petitioner No.1 filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2018. During counseling proceedings in 2018, respondent No. 2 admitted the dispute, expressed unwillingness to live with petitioner No. 1, and a settlement for mutual divorce with payment of ₹5,00,000 was arrived at. However, she failed to honor the settlement. In her written statement, respondent No. 2 did not deny that she had been living separately since May 2017. Despite this, respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR dated 03.08.2021 under Section 498-A /34 IPC making false allegations, including that she resided with petitioner No. 1 till 2020, which is contrary to records and her earlier statements. The petition filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2018 was allowed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.355/2018 and decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 on the ground of cruelty committed by respondent No.2. As such, the FIR is false, malicious, and filed with the intent to harass the applicants amid ongoing matrimonial litigation and continuation of proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and cause grave injustice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR dated 03.08.2021 registered under Section 498-A /34 IPC is wholly false, malicious and an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 28.04.2016; however, respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home within a short span and, in total, resided with petitioner No. 1 for less than two months. Since May 2017, the parties have been living separately. It is further submitted that due to the conduct of respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 1 suffered severe mental stress and was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 2018. Learned counsel submits that during counseling proceedings, respondent No. 2 categorically expressed her unwillingness to reside with petitioner No. 1 and a settlement for mutual divorce was arrived at, which she subsequently failed to honor. Even in her written statement filed in 2019, respondent No. 2 d