The court emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, criminal charges must be supported by substantial evidence to avoid misuse of legal processes against family members.

1. Complainant (Respondent No. 2) is husband of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner is brother - in - law (wife's husband) of Respondent No. 2. In the month of April, 1997, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 met each other in a train while travelling from Delhi to Hyderabad. They became friends. They continued to meet thereafter. With the passage of time love blossomed between them. Ultimately, they got married on 28th November, 1997 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Rathkhana, Bikaner according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It appears that after the marriage their relations became estranged. Respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleged that Respondent No. 3 had concealed her real age, her marital status and the fact that she was having two children out of her previous wedlock with one Wasif Khalil. She had also concealed that at the time of marriage with Wasif Khalil she had embraced Islam. Respondent No. 3 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of nullity under S.5 and S.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the month of November, 2000.

2. On 16th September, 2000, that is, few months prior to filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under S.200 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (ACMM), praying therein that Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 be summoned tried and punished for the offences under S.406/415/419/420/463/468/469/471 IPC. Pursuant to the directions of the Court under S.156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure , FIR No. 690/2000 under S.406 / 419/420 IPC has been registered at Police Station Kalkaji. After the investigation, charge - sheet was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who took cognizance of the offences and summoned the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23rd August, 2002. Petitioner filed an application seeking his discharge. This application was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11th April, 2005. Petitioner was discharged. Respondent No. 1 (State) preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 68/2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against the discharge of Petitioner. By the order impugned in this petition, Revision Petition has been allowed. Additional Sessions Judge has held that a, prima facie, case was made against the Petitioner for having committed offence under S.406 read with S.120B IPC and he be charged accordingly by the Trial Court.

3. That is how Petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition under S.397 Code of Criminal Procedure Initially Petitioner had filed the petition under S.482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that FIR No. 690/2000 under S.406/419/420 IPC registered at Police Station Kalkaji and the consequent proceedings emanating there from be quashed; order dated 5th March, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge be also set aside. However, since counsel for the Respondent No. 2 had challenged the maintainability of petition under S.482 Code of Criminal Procedure , at the request of Petitioner's counsel, present petition has been treated as a Criminal Revision Petition under S.397 read with S.401 Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 11th March, 2011, inasmuch as, Petitioner has confined his prayer only with regard to setting aside of the order of Additional Sessions Judge.

4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has contended that the Petitioner had earlier filed a petition under S.482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR. However, during the course of arguments of