ORDER

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C / 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 797 of 2021 registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Applicant No. 1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 is the elder brother-in- law (Jeth), and applicant No. 3 is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2. 3. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on the allegation that she got married to applicant No. 1 on 26/11/2017 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. Although her father had given sufficient dowry as per his financial ability, but the behavior of the applicants was not cordial on the ground of less dowry.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, on the instigation of applicant No. 3, started harassing her for bringing an additional amount of ₹10 lakhs from her father. In the absence of applicant No. 1, applicant No. 3 also started harassing her physically and mentally. On 29/07/2020, all three applicants demanded an amount of ₹10 lakhs. When she refused to fulfill their demand, she was assaulted and turned out of the matrimonial house. Accordingly, she came back to her parental home along with her two-and-a-half-year-old child and has been residing in her father's house since then. Her father contacted her in-laws to take her back to her matrimonial house, but every time, the applicants responded that until and unless an amount of ₹10 lakhs is paid, they would not take her back.

4. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that applicant No. 1 has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 18/10/2021, whereas, according to respondent No. 2, she was ousted on 30/07/2020, and therefore, the FIR is delayed and liable to be quashed.

5. Per Contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that delay in FIR cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Whether the institution of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights can be a good ground to quash the FIR?

7. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND “14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in BhajanLal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the findings of the High Court as noted hereinabove. The High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31-12-2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on

25-5-2001.

15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home at least six months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that Respondent 2 husband would take her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with Respondent 2 husband.

16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only wh