Ashish Ahuja Shelly and Another vs Gian Parkash Bhambri

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 for quashing of complaint No. 12 dated 5.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Amit Ahuja, petitioner No. 2 got married to Gauri, daughter of respondent on 7.2.2004. Thereafter, the couple left for Dubai. Gauri got an independent visa on 14.7.2005. Gauri came to India and moved a petition for divorce. The said petition was allowed in ex parte on 9.2.2006. After getting a fresh passport, Gauri then again returned to Dubai and got remarried to Satyan Dinesh Aslot on 5.10.2006. The complaint in question had been filed by the father of Gauri on 5.5.2007. Petitioner No. 2 was residing in Dubai whereas petitioner No. 1 was residing in America.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the dowry articles had been retained by the petitioners. Hence, the complaint in question was liable to continue.

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In the present case, admittedly petitioner No. 2 Amit Ahuja got married to Gauri, daughter of the respondent on 7.2.2004. Thereafter, the couple left for Dubai. After getting independent visa, Gauri came back to India and moved a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce. Copy of the petition has been placed on record as Annexure P-11. Annexure P-12 is the copy of the judgment/decree passed by the Court whereby ex parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of Gauri. Thereafter, Gauri returned back to Dubai and has performed marriage with Satyan Dinesh Aslot. The said fact is evident from Annexure P-13, copy of marriage certificate dated 5.10.2006. Thereafter, father of Gauri has filed the complaint in question against the petitioners levelling allegations that his daughter had been harassed by the petitioners. It has also been alleged that all the Istri Dhan articles of the daughter of the complainant had been retained by the petitioners. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is residing in America. Petitioner No. 2 is residing in Dubai. Gauri, daughter of respondent, had also left for Dubai after her marriage. It appears that some matrimonial dispute occurred between petitioner No. 2 and Gauri in Dubai. Due to this reason, Gauri came to India and got an ex parte decree of divorce and thereafter she returned to Dubai and got re-married to Satyan Dinesh Aslot. The complaint in question has been filed by the father of Gauri. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No. 12 dated 5.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), are quashed.