ORDER

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.266/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur, for offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as criminal proceedings initiated upon the aforesaid FIR.

2. Undisputed facts are that applicant no. 1 is the father-in-law, applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law and applicant no. 3 is the husband of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR on 14.4.2019 alleging that she got married to applicant no. 3 on 9.3.2015. Immediately after the marriage, the applicants started demanding gold chain, four gold bangles and cash amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and on account of that, they used to harass her physically and mentally. They used to beat her and whenever, she informed her father about harassment, then her father came to Dabra, as well as went to Chennai and tried to convince the applicants but harassment of the respondent no. 2 continued. On 8.8.2018 her husband came to take her back, then father of respondent no. 2 also requested him not to harass her. Then he specifically informed that the articles which were settled at the time of marriage should be given. A gold chain, four gold bangles and Rs.3,20,000/- are outstanding which should be given, only then, her daughter may reside in her matrimonial house and took respondent no. 2 to Dabra along with him. After two months, they again called the father of respondent no. 2 thereby informing that since the amount has not been sent, therefore, they would leave respondent no. 2 in her parental home. On 17.3.2019 her husband left her in her parental home with a clear warning that unless and until the entire dowry is not paid, he would not keep respondent no. 2 with him. Respondent no. 2 had given birth to a male child about 16 months back who is also residing with her. Demand of dowry was also made at Chhatarpur and when her father refused to give the same, then they abused and a clear threat was given that they would never allow respondent no. 2 to come to her matrimonial house.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that in fact, applicant no. 3 had filed a divorce petition on 12.11.2018 and after receiving notice of the same, respondent no. 2 has lodged an FIR on 14.4.2019. Therefore, it is clear that FIR was lodged by way of counter blast. Further the FIR was lodged belatedly and major part of the atrocities were committed at Chennai because at the bottom of the FIR it has been mentioned that husband of respondent no. 2 is residing in Chennai. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicants. 5. Whether the FIR can be quashed only on the ground that it was lodged after petition for divorce was filed or not?. 6. The question is no more res integra.

7. Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369, has held as under :- “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 Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 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 F