Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi and Mr. Prakhar Singh, Advocates v. STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR

Judgment

1. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks quashing of FIR No. 400/2019 dated 4th November, 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Okhla Industrial Area

The impugned FIR was registered on a complaint made by Respondent No. 2 – who is the wife of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are the father and mother of Petitioner No. 1, whereas, Petitioners No. 4 & 5 are the elder brother and sister-in-law of Petitioner No. 1. After conclusion 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:41:39 CRL.M.C. 289/2025 Page 1 of 12 of investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, wherein all the Petitioners have been arrayed as accused.

3. The Petitioners assail the FIR dated 4th November, 2019, contending that the allegations lack substance and are a gross abuse of process of law. According to the Petitioners, marital discord arose between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 due to personal differences. Respondent No. 2 has deserted Petitioner No. 1, for no reason. Following this, on 8th May, 2019, Petitioner No. 1 initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. However, shortly thereafter, Respondent No. 2, in what appears to be a retaliatory move, filed a complaint with the SHO, Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi, against Petitioner No. 1 and his family members. In her complaint, she alleged that the Petitioners had subjected her to physical abuse, harassment, and dowry demands, and further claimed that they had threatened her life. The Petitioners contend that these allegations are entirely false, baseless, and made with the sole intent of harassing them and exerting undue pressure.

4. On 8th July, 2019, Respondent No. 2 filed another domestic violence case against the Petitioners. However, they point out that the said domestic violence case has since been dismissed for non-prosecution and non- appearance vide order dated 8th August, 2023, which order reads as follows: “29 CT CASES 14081/2019 PRIYANKA Vs. UPEND RA KUMAR DEV PS-(Okhla Indl. Area)

08.08.2023 The undersigned is also looking after the work of Ms. Aditi Rao, Ld. 3 “IPC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:41:39 CRL.M.C. 289/2025 Page 2 of 12 Present: None. MM. Complainant has not been regularly appearing in court. Earlier on multiple dates, it was submitted that the matter has been settled with the respondent side and complainant is residing in the matrimonial house. Vide order dated 11.04.2023, Last opportunity was granted to the complainant to appear failing which complaint will be dismissed. On the NDOH ie., 29.05.2023 complainant was again absent. Even today nobody has appeared on behalf of complainant. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter In view of the same, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and non appearance. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Sd/- (Nidhi Singh) M.M/Mahila Court-02/SED Saket/N.D./08.08.2023” [Emphasis added]

5. The Petitioners contend that none of the essential ingredients of cruelty or other offences, under which the chargesheet has been filed, are discernible on a bare perusal of the FIR. They point out that Respondent No.2 herself returned to her matrimonial home after the filing of the chargesheet in the impugned FIR and subsequently gave birth to a second child with Petitioner No. 1. This conduct, coupled with her decision not to prosecute the domestic violence complaint, as evidenced by its dismissal for non-prosecution and non-appearance, suggests the allegations of cruelty and harassment are false and baseless. The voluntary resumption of cohabitation and the birth of a child, the Petitioners argue, demonstrate a lack of credibility in the allegations of cruelty and harassment raised in the FIR.

6. The Petitioners further emphasize is no medical examination of Respondent No. 2 on record, nor does her supplementary This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 16:41:39 CRL.M.C. 289/2025 Page 3 of 12 statement dated 5th September, 2022, mention any specific incident of harassment. Petitioners place reliance on the judgment in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra4, to urge that a claim of ‘cruelty’ can only be attributed when it is accompanied by some cogent evidence and in absence of such proof, Section 498A cannot be attributed to the Petitioners. Furthermore, Petitioners argue that Respondent No. 2 has not given any specifics regarding the alleged of harassment meted out to her and the allegations made in the FIR are completely vague, omnibus and general in nature. Therefore, without any specific allegation, the Petitioners submit that the impugned FIR is not sustainable in law.

7. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR is a pressure tactic employed by Respondent No. 2 to secure monetary benefits by falsely implicating the Petitioners in frivolous cases. They emphasize that Petitioner No. 4, an Army officer, resides in Delhi with his wife, Petitioner No. 5, and neither of them has ever lived in Jharkhand, where the matrimonial home of Respondent No. 2 is situated. Consequently, the allegations against them are implausible and without merit. Respondent No. 2 has dragged all the family members of Petitioner No. 1 in litigation, even though they do not live in the same house. In this regard, they place reliance on the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.5 wherein the Supreme Court held that vague and generalized allegations against the husband’s family members, without specific accusations or prima facie evidence, are grounds for quashing proceedings as their continuation would amount to abuse of the legal process. The Petitioners urge the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to