Criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes should be quashed when the allegations are vague, omnibus, lack specified ingredients of the offences charged, or are revealed as retaliatory tactics following adverse findings in previous competent matrimonial or civil adjudications, thus constituting an abuse of the legal process.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Aditya Mohan Nigam and Ashok Nigam seeking quashing of the FIR No. 467/2016 dated 18.05.2016 at PS Hauz Khas under Sections 498A /406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and all consequential proceedings thereto.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioners are law abiding citizens and have been falsely implicated in the FIR No. 467/2016 which is based on the Complaint dated 08.09.2015 filed by the Respondent No.2/Kavita, which is pending adjudication before the Court of Ld. MM-02 Mahila Court, New Delhi.

3. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2/Kavita was married to Petitioner No.1/Aditya Mohan Nigam on 30.05.2009, according to Hindu rites and customs. On 15.04.2011, the Respondent-Wife moved out of the house of the parents of the Petitioner-Husband and shifted to her parental house at B-1289, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.

4. The Petitioners have asserted that the Respondent-Wife, without any justification, left the matrimonial home and shifted to her parents’ residence in Gurgaon. In May, 2011, the Respondent-wife filed a Petition bearing CC No. 216/2011 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”) seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 20, against the Petitioner-Husband and his family. The Petitioners claim that this Complaint was clearly intended to use criminal proceedings as a tool to harass, humiliate and extort money and a house in South Delhi from the Petitioner.

5. The identical allegations were raised in the Complaint filed before the CAW Cell, which resulted in FIR No. 467/2016 dated 18.05.2016 under Sections 498A /406/34 IPC against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The allegations in the DV Complaint and in CR Case No. 2364/2017 arising from the Section 498A /406 case are identical and omnibus. This Complaint was clearly intended to use criminal proceedings in CR Case 2364/2017 as a tool to harass, humiliate and extort money and a house in South Delhi from the Petitioner.

6. Petitioner No.1 asserts that owing to the Respondent’s continuous cruel behaviour, he was compelled to leave his parents’ home and began residing in a rented accommodation in Malviya Nagar, and later in Gurgaon, near his workplace. The Petitioner-Husband states that he attempted to resolve the marital dispute through the Mediation Centre. However, due to the Respondent-Wife and her family’s persistent non-participation, the mediation could not proceed and the Petitioner ultimately withdrew from the process.

7. In light of the above circumstances, the Petitioner-Husband filed a Divorce Petition against the Respondent-Wife, which is presently pending adjudication before the Ld.