Last Updated on September 7, 2024 by Satish Mishra

This post is a judgment digest on High Court Chandigarh Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Offences (498A 406 IPC) where FIR was registered against the family members of husband by wife as complainant. Here in this complaint, the relatives of husband- father in law, mother in law, sister in law, brother in law, bhabhi etc were named in the FIR leading to unnecessary harassment & torture as the relationship turned sour between husband & wife. There is growing tendency among disgruntled wife’s to name all individuals in husband family once the matrimonial dispute arises in the marriage.

High Court Chandigarh Quashing of FIR

Also party who accepts the amount in settlement cannot retract from giving statement in the court. Recently High Court Chandigarh has put cost of 50K on wife for not showing up. But the FIR got quashed by High Court Chandigarh.

Matrimonial Case Transfer High Court Chandigarh

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Biharand another, AIR 2011 SC 1674 has held that where the wife per force had to stay at her parental home the local court where her parental home is situated would have the jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In Sunita Kumari Kashyap’s case (supra) matrimonial home was at Ranchi and the wife’s parental home was at Gaya. Institution of the criminal proceedings at Gaya were upheld in that case.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 1994(4) RCR(Criminal) 503 has held that an FIR cannot be quashed simply on the ground that police in question did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence.

A Division Bench of this Court in Gaganpreet Kuar v. Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh and others, 20069(1) RCR (Criminal) 394 has held that Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction on the court with goods entrusted are to be returned. In Gaganpreet Kaur‘s case (supra) marriage between the parties had been solemnized at Delhi, dowry articles were entrusted at Delhi and allegations of maltreatment or torture on account of demand of dowry were relatable to Delhi. Wife in that case was thrown out of her matrimonial home by her husband and she was residing at Chandigarh with her minor child thereafter. Complaint was lodged by her before the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh and the same was transferred to Delhi. The said action was challenged by the wife before this Court. Division Bench of this Court allowed the wife’s petition and set aside the order transferring the proceedings to Delhi.

Also Read- Quashing of FIR 498A 406 IPC High Court Chandigarh

To better understand the case, lets read the judgment.

Deciding Member and Authority

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hari Pal Verma

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana

CRM-M-57384-2018

Date of decision: 13.03.2020

Court giving Judgement: Chandigarh

Petitioners

Suresh Kumar Kamboj and Ors.

[Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,

for the petitioners.]

Applicant

State of Haryana and Anr.

[Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana,

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, and

Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.]

Also Read- Section 482 Crpc; Quashing of Fir

Important Sections considered in this case:

Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code

377. Unnatural offences.—Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

Also Read- WOMEN CELL COMPLAINT HUSBAND CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code

498A. 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.

Also Read- Fighting False 498a & 406 Ipc Case

Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Also Read- Suspension of Sentence While Appeal Is Pending in High Court

Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code

120. Concealing design to commit offence punishable with impris­onment.—Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an of­fence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the exist­ence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representa­tion which he knows to be false respecting such design, If offence be committed—if offence be not committed.—shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Also Read- Grounds for Quashing of Fir

Facts and Judgement of the Case

The petitioners against whom the complaint is registered, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother- in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani), have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for rejecting the FIR No.199 dated 15.05.2018 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1). All the proceedings are proceeded from there itself.

According to the Complainant:

The FIR was registered by the Respondent No.2 alleging that the Respondent i.e., Nitu Kamboj married with Varun Kamboj (i.e. son of petitioners No.1 i.e., father-in-law and 2 i.e., Mother-in -Law) on 02.12.2008. According to the FIR the parents of the complainant have been repeatedly pressurised to pay the money to the respondent through harassing her. The complainant said that there parents have already given gold jewellery and other dowry items to the respondent as istridhan which is more then there status after the marriage, the complainant started living in the matrimonial home at House No.G-199, Sector 10, D.L.F., Faridabad, but after 15 days of marriage, the accused started harassing her while saying that they were expecting a luxury car in dowry, as they were expecting an expensive and luxury car in the Dowry. They said that they have rejected other big proposals for only that reason that they will be receiving a huge amount of dowry. As per the FIR Accused started demanding a car and cash of Rs.10 lacs and rather threatened that when she will go to meet her parents, then return after fulfilling their demands otherwise there is no need to come back to the house. The have clearly said that the complainant parents have to give an Audi car and cash of Rs 10 lakhs. Even after the parents of the complainant showed there inability to fulfil there demand as there are not economically feasible for that demand the accused continuously pressurised for the demand.

Also Read- High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Even after that to make the accused happy the complainants parents have given the accused a cash of Rs. 50 thousand. But this did not satisfied the  greed of the accused and they started harassing her (Respondent No 2). The complainant said that they were having 2 daughters who were born on 25.10.2009 and 15.07.2014. Even after that the accused did not stop the harassment upon the her and continued it to fulfil there illegitimate demands. A plot (serial No.298, dated 04.03.2013) was purchased by the complainant with the help of her father and out of her savings, but after some days, the accused started giving beatings to the complainant for the purpose of transfer of said plot in their name. Before the birth of there 2^nd child the accused has pressurised to have a medical check up to check the sex determination of the child. She said that accused have prepared all the necessary things to abort the child if it is a female foetus and will be keeping it if there is a male foetus with the concerned doctor. The complainant refused upon doing so which results that 2 of the 10 accussed have given a beatings to her very badly. The stopped providing good food to her and were even not taking to the good doctors during the pregnancy. On August 2011, , the accused i.e. parents-in-law, jeth-jethani demanded from her Rs.2 lacs and said to take this amount from her parents. Accordingly, she informed her father and on 13.08.2011, her father gave Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused so that the greed of the accused can be satisfied. Again on 13.12.2013, father of the complainant given Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused, but the accused tortured and abused her continuously. On 01.03.2014 night, her husband came in a drunken condition and made an unnatural sex relation with her even without her consent, for which, she suffered the whole night, but the accused did not bothered at all. After this a All the accused in conspiracy separated the accused on 02.03.2014 and sent her to live in a rented house at Sector 11, Faridabad. They also stated that the plot which is situated in Sector 11, Tullip Housing Private Company, E- Block, Faridabad, is theirs (accused) and on allotment, the same will be given to the complainant.

Also Read- Criminal Matters in High Court Chandigarh

The accused also started to visit the rented house. During this time, the complainant came to know that one girl, namely Vandana Kaushik had come in relation with her husband. However, when she complained to the accused regarding this relationship of her husband, instead of stopping him, they said that she (complainant) is not beautiful, whereas the other lady (Vandana) is beautiful and it would be nice if Varun marry with that lady. In fear of the daughters marital life did not get destroyed the complainants parents have given the amount of Rs 2 Lakhs to the accused so that her daughter can live peacefully in her daughters matrimonial home. Even after this the accused have not stopped. on 14.08.2015, all the accused in collusion with each other put pressure on the complainant to fulfill their demands, but since she had shown her inability to meet such demands, all the accused gave her beatings. Still her parents in October, 2015 made understand all the accused and on their demand, gave Rs.1 lac cash. On 25.02.2016 night her husband made a unnatural sexual relations with her and she suffered severe pain for the whole night due to her husbands. But her husband (Varun) did not bothered at all. She told this incident to her mother-in-law, but she didn’t her at all. Next day i.e., on 26.02.2016 her jeth (petitioner No.3-Gaurav Kamboj) dropped her husband-Varun at the house of Vandana.The accused did not improve themselves and continuously tortured her to sell out the plot. The money which was deposited in her name and in the name of her daughter Dhanya, petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) by torturing her, got her signature affixed and drawn Rs.42,000/- on 07.11.2016 through cheque and Rs.13,000/- in cash. On 06.03.2017, petitioner No.1 (father-in-law) forcibly took a cheque of sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from her.

Also Read- Quashing of Fir in High Court Chandigarh

According the Learned Councils for the Petitioners:

As per there council they submitted that petitioners No.1 and petitioners No.2 are old parents-in-law of the complainant. Moreover, petitioner No.2- Sanyogita Kamboj is a patient of cancer. Petitioners No.3 and petitioners No.4, who are jeth and jethani of the complainant, are staying with petitioners No.1 and 2 in a separate house. He refers to the address given in the memo of parties and submits that the complainant and her husband are residing separately in different accommodation i.e. Sector 28, Faridabad. Earlier, they were residing in Sector 11, Faridabad. There is a tendency to implicate all the near relatives in the dispute like the present one. Moreover, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.12.2008 and, therefore, the demand of dowry after 10 years of marriage is quite unrealistic. At the most, if any, is between the complainant and her husband and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer merely for the reason that they are the parents and brother &bhabi of the husband of the complainant.

Also Read- File Divorce Online in India

The council also presented a precedent case of the judgement made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another Versus State of U.P. and another-2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812 to contend that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute. He also refers to a judgment of this Court in Anita and others Versus State of Punjab-CRM- M-27044-2001, decided on 17.07.2003 to contend that FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC lodged by wife against entire members of family of husband including four unmarried sisters and brother was quashed by this Court, as it is not believable that unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. According to them there is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband and the wife become strained.

Also Read- Latest on FIR Quashing from Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Response from the Complainants side:

Mr. Sammi, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has argued that the petitioners and the complainant were staying in the same house and immediately after 15 days of marriage, all the accused started demanding Rs.10 lacs and a luxury car from the complainant and she was repeatedly harassed/tortured by the petitioners for demand of dowry. There are specific allegations against the accused. Moreover, at different times, the money was entrusted to the petitioners on their asking. The complainant had no option except to satisfy the demands of the accused and her parents have given amounts to the accused repeatedly. Even in the year 5 of 10 2014, they started living separately, but thereafter, the whole family started staying together. It is the father of the complainant who made investment in the plot and the petitioners have not contributed any amount in the plot. Thus, the plot was purchased from the fund received from the father of the complainant.

Also Read- Quashing of Criminal Case & Fir

Judgement Given by the Court:

According to the judgement given by the court there was no dispute that marriage of respondent No.2-Nitu Kamboj was solemnized with the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Varun Kamboj on 02.12.2008 and out of this wedlock, two daughters were born to them on 25.10.2009 and 15.07.2014. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have been pressurizing the complainant to meet their demands of Rs.10 lacs and a luxury car. The address so given by the petitioners in the present petition is different to that of the petition filed by the co-accused Varun Kamboj who is none else but the husband of the complainant. From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there is no specific averment in the FIR that after 2014, the petitioners were staying with the complainant except that they visited the complainant and her husband on different times. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be a patient of cancer and this fact is not seriously controverted by the learned State counsel or the counsel for the complainant. It is clear from the FIR that the real dispute is between the complainant and her husband and that too because the husband was allegedly maintaining extra marital relations. This had probably caused differences in the family. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), it has been held that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute.

Also Read- Cancellation of Fir Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

6 of 10 The relevant paras 17 to 21 are reproduced as under:-

“17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Also Read- High Court of Punjab and Haryana Faq

18. In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482Cr.P.C. wherein it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have 7 of 10 considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

Also Read- How to Get Discharge from a Criminal Case

19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

Also Read- Acquittal in Abetment of Suicide Case Against Husband

20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 290: (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about 8 of 10 rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.”

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

Also Read- FIR Registration in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali

21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498Ainthe Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.”

Also Read- Apprehension of Arrest: Get an Anticipatory Bail.

9 of 10 CRM-M-57384-2018 – 10 –

Similar are the observations made in Anita and others’s case (supra).

Therefore, having perused the contents of the FIR and the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view that the present FIR qua the petitioners is liable to be quashed as the petitioners were named in the FIR being closely related with the husband, who had a matrimonial dispute with his wife. Moreover, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.12.2008, and demand of dowry by such relatives after about 10 years of marriage is quite unrealistic.

At the end, the court quashed the petition made by the complainant in the FIR No.199 dated 15.05.2018 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Also Read- Compromise Quashing in High Court Chandigarh

For case specific advice on quashing of fir from expert criminal lawyers of Punjab and Haryana High Court may also be contacted from Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Baltana Mullanpur etc.

This post is written by Aman Dubey.

More info on 99888-17966.