HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1842/2020

Komal Narang S/o Shyamlal Narang, Aged About 29 Years, By

Caste Arora, R/o Plot No. 9-10, Daara Colony Ward No. 14, Near
Chandigarh Hospital, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shefali W/o Komal Narang D/o Pradeep Sachdeva S/o
Madan Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o 85-86, Prem Nagar, Sri
Ganganagar. Presently Residing At 9G Tower Grand Rama
9, 10Th Floor, Rama 9Rd, Huay Kwang, Bankok, Thailand-
10310
3. Pradeep Sachdeva S/o Madan Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o
85-86, Prem Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 503/2020
1. Manju Bala W/o Shyamlal Narang, Aged About 55 Years,
By Caste Arora, R/o Plot No. 9-10, Daara Colony Ward
No. 14 Near Chandigarh Hospital Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Shyamlal Narang S/o Kashiram, Aged About 60 Years, By
Caste Arora, R/o Plot No. 9-10, Daara Colony Ward No.
14 Near Chandigarh Hospital Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through P.p.
2. Shefali W/o Komal Narang D/o Pradeep Sachdeva S/o
Madan Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o 85-86, Prem Nagar, Sri
Ganganagar. Presently Residing At 9G Tower Grand Rama
9, 10Th Floor, Rama 9Rd, Huay Kwang, Bankok, Thailand-
10310
3. Predeep Sachdeva S/o Madan Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o
85-86, Prem Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hardev Singh Sidhu Kharlia,

Senior Advocate assisted by
Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
Mr. Deepender Rajpurohit
Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi PP
Mr. C.S. Kotwani
Mr. Deepak Kankar

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (2 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

Reserved on 16/08/2021
Pronounced on 01/09/2021

1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant

caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,

for the safety of all concerned.

2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have

been preferred seeking quashing of FIR No.117/2019 registered at

Police Station Mahila Thana, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar

and the entire proceedings in furtherance of the same, for the

offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 313 & 377 IPC against the

present petitioners.

3. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1842/2020 has been

preferred by Komal Narang (hereinafter also referred to as

‘petitioner-husband’), who is husband of complainant/respondent

No.2-Shefali (hereinafter also referred to as ‘complainant-wife’).

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.503/2020 has been preferred by

Manju Bala - mother-in-law of the complainant - and Shyamlal

Narang - father-in-law of the complainant - (hereinafter also

referred to as ‘in-laws’).

4. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the

present petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife got married,

as per the Hindu rituals, on 13.12.2015 at Hanumangarh. The

couple thereafter, moved to Bangkok (Thailand) and stayed there

together for some time. However, thereafter, matrimonial conflict

arose between them, which led to lodging of the present FIR

bearing No.117/2019 dated 01.06.2019 at Police Station Mahila

Thana, Sriganganagar, District Srigangangagar for the offences

under Sections 406, 498-A, 313 & 377 IPC, quashing whereof has

been sought in the present petitions.

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (3 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

5. Mr. Hardev Singh Sidhu Kharlia, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia, for the petitioners has made

submissions pertaining to both the present petitions filed on behalf

of husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, of the

complainant/respondent No.2.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on

a bare reading of the FIR itself, the offence against the present

petitioner-husband is not made out.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the offence is also not made out against the old aged and ill

parents of the complainant’s husband, and the impugned FIR was

lodged only with a view to harass them.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted

that the role of the petitioners (in-laws of the complainant) cannot

be said to be such, which can suggest that they were the

perpetrators of the allegations concerned, as they were residing at

Hanumangarh, whereas the complete matrimony in question was

admittedly spent at Bangkok (Thailand), except for certain

intermittent visits of the complainant-wife to her matrimonial

home at Hanumangarh.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted

that on a bare reading of the chats and the conversation between

the petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife, it is clear that

until there was matrimonial harmony, there were no allegations;

however, as soon as the colour of such harmony changed, the

allegations in question erupted retrospectively.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has, in relation to

the case of the present petitioners (in-laws of the complainant),

drawn the attention of this Court towards the guidelines as laid

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (4 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors.

Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; GV Rao

Vs. LHV Prasad & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693; and

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR

2017 SC 3869, to contend that as per the precedent law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said cases, in

matrimonial cases, where there is a quarrel between husband and

wife, the innocent parents and family members, who have

no role in the concerned incident, should not be arrayed as

accused persons, and the proceedings against them ought to be

quashed and set aside. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter, has

submitted that the case of the present petitioners (in-laws of the

complainant) falls in the said category of cases.

11. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners has also placed reliance upon the precedent law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr.

Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in AIR 2013 SC 181.

Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered

by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkatapathi

Naidu & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., reported in 2008

CRI.L.J. 179.

Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered

by this Hon’ble Court in Hari Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015 CRI.L.J. 2000, relevant

portion of which reads as under:

“18. There is no dispute about the principle of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
decisions regarding the powers of High Court in
quashing the FIR while exercising jurisdiction under

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (5 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

section 482 CrPC. It is held that object of section 482

CrPC is to prevent abuse of process of court and to
secure ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also held that the High Court needs to be circumspect
and exercise power under section 482 CrPC in
exceptional circumstances depending upon facts of each
case. It is further held that if allegations leading to
criminal prosecution prima facie do not disclose, then
power under section 482 CrPC can be exercised.
19. The main principles regarding exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaints
and criminal proceedings have been stated and
reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in several
decisions. To mention a few — Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre,
(1988) 1 SCC 692; State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194; Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State of Bihar v.
Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259;
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles
relevant are as under:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out the case
alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a

whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (6 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the

complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for
quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear

abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm,
or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to

stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power
should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce

the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the
necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not
been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be
quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only
where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts
which are absolutely necessary for making out the
offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has
been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence
or not.

20. Now the question comes whether any prima facie

case for commission of any cognizable offence is made
out against the petitioners or not.

21. From bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that after

her marriage in May, 2004, the respondent No.2 lived in
Delhi with her in- laws up to June, 2005. Thereafter,
she joined her husband in America and remained there
up to January, 2011. There is no allegation to the effect
that the petitioners have ever visited America during

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (7 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

the period when the respondent No.2 was residing in

America with her husband. Respondent No.2 had
returned to India on 19.01.2011 and straightway went
to Udaipur at her father's house, though, it is alleged
that when she contacted her in-laws on telephone on
19.01.2011, all the accused-persons had asked her to
bring Rs.1 crore as dowry. It has nowhere been
contended in the FIR that which of the accused had
asked her on telephone to give the dowry. It is not
possible that all the accused- persons together asked
the respondent No.2 on telephone to give the dowry.

22. In para No.12 of the FIR, the respondent No.2 has

alleged that in the first month of year 2011, all the
accused persons with common intention have kept her
ornaments, dowry items and demanded dowry and
when she refused for the same, she was thrown out of
house after giving a beating. It is noticed that in para
No.9 of the FIR, it is alleged that after reaching Delhi
Airport from America, respondent No.2 made a phone
call to her in-laws but they demanded dowry and
refused to keep her with them, then she went to
Udaipur. This Court is of the opinion that when the
respondent No.2 had not visited the petitioners' house
after returning from America on 19.01.2011, how the
allegations levelled in para No.12 of the FIR regarding
demand of dowry, assault and misappropriation of
ornaments and dowry articles can be believed or taken
as true.

23. In the whole complaint, the respondent No.2 has

simply alleged that all the accused-persons have
demanded the dowry from her and her father on
telephone, however, no specific role of any of the
accused persons has been mentioned. As such, from
the bare reading of the FIR, no offence punishable
under sections 498A and 406 IPC is made out against
the petitioners.

24. However, from bare reading of the complaint, it is

clear that specific allegations of cruelty and harassment
are levelled against the accused No.1 and for that
respondent No.2 had to approach a local court in
America seeking protection from her husband regarding
her ill-treatment. This fact itself shows that prima facie
case may be made out against the accused No.1,
however, this Court is of the opinion that other
accused-persons have been implicated by the

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (8 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

respondent No.2 only for the reason that they are

immediate relatives of accused No.1.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr.

vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) has observed
as under:

“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that

unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly
increasing in our country. All the courts in our
country including this court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates
discontent and unrest in the family life of a large
number of people of the society.

29. The courts are receiving a large number of

cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code which reads as under:-

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,

`cruelty' means:-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as

is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand."

30. It is a matter of common experience that most

of these complaints under section 498- A IPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.
At the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a
matter of serious concern.

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (9 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

31. The learned members of the Bar have

enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fiber of family life is not
ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not
be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of
the complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned members of
the Bar who belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under section 498-A as a basic human
problem and must make serious endeavour to help
the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of
that human problem. They must discharge their
duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that
social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society
remains intact. The members of the Bar should
also ensure that one complaint should not lead to
multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the

complaint the implications and consequences are
not properly visualized by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant,
accused and his close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the

truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task
in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (10 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

It is also a matter of common knowledge that in

cases filed by the complainant if the husband or
the husband's relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of
amicable settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to

observe that a serious relook of the entire
provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also
a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated
versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a very large number
of cases.”

(Emphasis supplied)

26. In Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:

“we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious

complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting
the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of
process of law and it has to be interdicted at the
threshold.”

27. In view of the above discussions, this Court is

convinced that in the case in hand, there is over
implication of the petitioners in the complaint. The
petitioners cannot be said to be involved in commission
of any crime as per the contents of the FIR. Hence, it is
a fit case wherein this Court can exercise inherent
powers to quash the impugned FIR qua the petitioners.

28. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed.

The impugned FIR No.123 dated 12.11.2011 lodged at
Women Police Station, Udaipur qua the petitioners (1)
Hari Ram Sharma, (2) Smt. Maya Devi, (3) Anil Kumar
and (4) Smt. Meenu and all other ancillary proceedings
are hereby quashed. The police may continue the
investigation against remaining accused.”

12. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsels for the private respondents, including the

complainant-wife, while vehemently opposing the petitions,

submitted that since the nature of allegations levelled in the

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (11 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

present FIR are very serious, therefore, at this stage, no

interference of this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section

482 Cr.P.C. is warranted.

13. Learned counsels for the private respondents however,

reiterated the story, as narrated in the impugned FIR, and the

documents, pertaining to the investigation made into the present

FIR, were also shown by the learned Public Prosecutor to this

Court.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaptan

Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal

Appeal No.787 of 2021, decided on 13.08.2021).

15. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions made by learned counsels on both sides as well as

carefully perusing the record of the case, alongwith the case diary

and the factual report of the case, as furnished by the learned

Public Prosecutor, this Court is convinced that the petition (S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.1842/2020) preferred by the husband of

the complainant/respondent No.2, at this stage, requires no

interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of

Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the allegations against him are there in the

FIR, and also, the record of the case suggests that such

allegations are prima facie correct, which clearly shows that the

offence against the present petitioner-husband is made out.

16. However, as far as the limited contention made on behalf of

present petitioners (in-laws of the complainant) in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Petition No. 503/2020 is concerned, this Court has taken

note of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Hari Ram

Sharma (supra), as cited by learned Senior Counsel for the

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (12 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

petitioners, in which this Hon’ble Court, after dealing with, at

length, the precedent laws referred to in that case, had

concluded that if the couple was not residing with the in-

laws and the focus of the allegations was upon the husband

only, then it would not be proper to prosecute such family

members, like the in-laws.

17. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the present

petitioners (in-laws of the complainant) are not only old aged, but

are also ill, as per the submissions made by learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioners and the averments made in the petition

(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 503/2020) preferred by them.

18. In the opinion of this Court, certain list of dates and events,

as furnished by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners for

perusal of this Court, is also of much significance for the present

adjudication.

The said list shows that marriage of the petitioner-husband and

the complainant-wife took place on 13.12.2015, and soon

thereafter, they went together to Bangkok on 01.01.2016, as the

petitioner-husband was in continuous employment there.

The list further shows that the complainant-wife came back to

India on 01.11.2016, and thereafter, stayed with the parents

(petitioners/in-laws) of her husband only uptill 15.11.2016 at

Hanumangarh, whereafter she again went to Bangkok.

As per the aforementioned list, the complainant-wife again came

back to India on 27.05.2017 and stayed at her matrimonial home

at Hanumangarh for another about 15 days uptill 10.06.2017, and

thereafter, she went to Bangkok; she again came back to India on

07.11.2018 and stayed with her in-laws only upto 09.12.2018.

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (13 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

19. This Court thereafter, has also taken note of certain

documents, which are Visa papers, sent by the complainant-wife

on 22.02.2019, recommending visit of her in-laws to Bangkok,

which was soon before lodging of the impugned FIR dated

01.06.2019 by the complainant-wife.

20. This Court also finds that the conversation between the

petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife, on WhatsApp,

shows matrimonial intimacy between them, but at the same time,

it also shows slow deviation from the matrimonial harmony in the

year 2018, and thereafter, cropping up of the retrospective

allegations.

21. The facts mentioned in the FIR are the prime allegations

against the husband, who is alleged to have ill-treated the

complainant-wife. The only allegation against the in-laws is that

they induced her into the marriage on wrongful facts, and

thereafter, kept on making the demands of dowry.

22. However, the allegation is that the in-laws turned the

complainant out of their house on 18.05.2019, when she reached

Hanumangarh. These sporadic allegations are very vague, as no

specific incident of the complainant with her in-laws has been

mentioned in the FIR. The allegations are of Bangkok and the

involvement of the husband has been alleged.

23. While adjudicating the present case, this Court has also kept

into consideration the main principles for quashing of the

FIR/criminal proceedings, as laid down in the judgments, which

were dealt with at length by this Hon’ble Court in the judgment

rendered in Hari Ram Sharma (supra), as quoted hereinabove.

24. In view of this Court, the present complaint, even if is taken

on the face of it, indicates that the complainant-wife was never

residing with her in-laws at Hanumangarh, except for her visits,

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (14 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

that too, for a few short stints. Further, as per the list of dates

and events, as noticed hereinabove by this Court, uptill 2019

(soon before lodging of the impugned FIR), the complainant-wife,

was willing to happily recommend Visa of the present petitioners

(in-laws) to Bangkok, where the couple was residing at the

relevant point of time even in the year 2019.

25. Moreover, the allegations are prima facie against the

petitioner-husband only, and rather the petitioners/in-laws have

hardly been attributed with any direct allegation or specific role, in

relation to the offences alleged.

26. The facts of the case, when considered alongwith the record

of the case, clearly indicates that the prima facie case is made out

against the accused petitioner-husband only, and not against the

in-laws of the complainant.

27. This Court is thus, of the opinion that the implication of the

old aged and ill in-laws by the present complainant-wife is nothing

but an expansion of the matrimonial dispute with an ulterior

motive to exert unnecessary pressure upon them.

28. The precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.,

reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363, as referred to in the judgment

of Hari Ram Sharma (supra), read with Section 498-A of IPC,

strengthens the belief of this Court that the case of the present

petitioners (in-laws) is a fit case for intervention of this Court

under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

29. This Court is also of the opinion that the long distance

relationships, on the face of it, cannot cover the allegations

levelled in the FIR in question against the in-laws. Thus, though

the allegations levelled in the FIR against the accused petitioner-

husband may be genuine, but the same, as levelled against the

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (15 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

petitioners/in-laws, at the threshold itself, are nothing but a pure

abuse of the process of law.

30. Thus, the precedent laws cited by learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioners have provided guidance to adjudicate the present

case, to a limited extent of convincing this Court for quashing the

impugned FIR alongwith all the consequential proceedings, only

qua the petitioners (in-laws of the complainant).

31. This Court finds that the marriage, which took place in the

year 2015 and which resulted into the present conflict in the year

2019, was mainly subsisting at Bangkok, where the husband and

wife resided.

32. The matrimonial home of the complainant-wife was at

Bangkok with her husband, without any substantial interference or

meeting with the in-laws. The act of the complainant

recommending the parents (in-laws) coming to Bangkok on

22.02.2019 speaks for itself. The dates being not disputed and the

fact that an independent matrimony was existing at Bangkok, at

all times, except for some short ceremonial stints, clearly absolve

the present petitioners (in-laws) of the charges levelled against

them.

33. The couple were financially independent and had their own

lifestyle, which existed much far from Hanumangarh, where the

in-laws resided. The nature of influence of in-laws on a financially,

socially and emotionally independent, son and daughter-in-law,

who were residing in a foreign country, clearly reflects that their

inclusion in the present case is an over implication in the charges

levelled at the instance of the complainant.

34. Since the present petitioners (in-laws) have been able to

demonstrate beyond doubt that the connection between them and

their daughter-in-law was very limited, due to long distance,

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

 (16 of 16) [CRLMP-1842/2020]

therefore, deriving of a conclusion that their involvement is not

there, is not difficult. On the face of the record, the rigour and

rancour of a criminal trial need not be faced by the present

petitioners (in-laws).

35. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm

opinion that it is a clear case of over implication of charges upon

the in-laws by the complainant. The long distance relationships

explained by the list of dates and events, referred to hereinabove,

in the opinion of this Court, cannot culminate into the allegations

as levelled in the impugned FIR, as far as the petitioners (in-laws

of the complainant) are concerned.

36. Resultantly, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.503/2020

preferred by Manju Bala (mother-in-law of the

complainant) and Shyamlal Narang (father-in-law of the

complainant) is allowed, and accordingly, the impugned FIR

No.117/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana,

Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences under

Sections 406, 498-A, 313 & 377 IPC, alongwith entire proceedings

pursuant thereto, qua the petitioners/in-laws, are hereby

quashed. However, as indicated above, S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No. 1842/2020 preferred by petitioner-Komal

Narang (husband of the complainant) is dismissed, and

accordingly, the investigating authority is directed to continue with

the investigation against the petitioner-husband in relation to the

impugned FIR, and take all necessary consequential action, strictly

in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of

accordingly.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

SKant/-

(Downloaded on 09/09/2021 at 05:58:34 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)