$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14^th January, 2025 Date of Decision: 04th March, 2025 + W.P.(CRL) 900/2024 SUNIL BAILWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with Mr. Alok Sharma and Ms. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates Mr. Amitesh Pandey, Advocate for R-2 + W.P.(CRL) 987/2024 KHUSI RAM BAILWAL AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rituparn Uniyal, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with Mr. Alok Sharma and Ms. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates Mr. Amitesh Pandey, Advocate for R-2 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA % J U D G M E N T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HEMANT W.P.(CRL) 900/2024 and W.P.(CRL) 987/2024 Page 1 of 10 MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. W.P. (Crl.) 900/2024 has been filed by the Petitioner/husband of Respondent No. 2/complainant seeking quashing of the FIR No. 514/2022 dated 06.08.2022, registered at Police Station (P.S) – Lajpat Nagar, South East, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and along with all other proceedings arising therefrom qua the Petitioner/husband.

2. W.P. (Crl.) 987/2024 has been filed by the father-in-law [Petitioner No. 1], mother-in-law [Petitioner No. 2] and sisters-in-law [Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4] of Respondent No. 2/complainant seeking quashing of the FIR No. 514/2022 dated 06.08.2022, registered at Police Station (P.S) – Lajpat Nagar, South East, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and along with all other proceedings arising therefrom qua the Petitioners.

3. Since both the quashing petitions arise out of the same FIR and there is similitude of facts as well, therefore, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

4. The facts are being narrated from the perspective of the husband, i.e., Sunil Baliwal as set out in W.P. (Crl.) 900/2024.

5. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner/Sunil married Respondent no. 2 on 10.02.2019 at Delhi and thereafter lived together in Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand (matrimonial home). After residing together for two months, the Petitioner in the month of April, 2019 left for Singapore to join his workplace where he worked as a chef in a restaurant. It is stated that at the request of Respondent no. 2 he dropped her at her parental home in New Delhi. It is stated since then Respondent no. 2 had been living at her Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HEMANT W.P.(CRL) 900/2024 and W.P.(CRL) 987/2024 Page 2 of 10 parental home and would occasionally visit her matrimonial home for a few days from time to time.

5.1. It is stated that in August, 2019 Khushi Ram Bailwal, the father of the Petitioner (i.e. the father-in-law) met with an accident and fractured his leg. It is stated that Petitioner requested Respondent no. 2 to return to her matrimonial home to take care of his parents. It is stated that, however, Respondent no. 2 declined the request of the Petitioner.

5.2. It is stated that between September 2019 to October 2020 (for 13 months), Respondent no. 2 came to the matrimonial home from time to time and stayed for a week at a time and left thereafter. It is stated that this conduct of Respondent no. 2 was objected by the parents of the Petitioner i.e., the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, which led to differences between the parties. And, lastly on 21.10.2020 Respondent no. 2 left for her paternal home at Delhi, and she was adamant not to return to the matrimonial home.

5.3. It is stated that Petitioner opened a joint bank account with Respondent no. 2 in PNB Bank, Rishikesh wherein he regularly deposited money to provide for the personal expenses and maintenance of Respondent no. 2.

5.4. It is stated that on 19.01.2021 Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint case unde