Vijay Kumar Monga and Another vs State NCT of Delhi and Another

V.K. Shali, J.—I have heard the learned APP for the State and perused the record.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 170/2006 u/s 498 A/406 registered by P.S. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings initiated on the basis of the same and pending in the competent Court.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the parents of Vikas Monga. Vikas Monga is alleged have got married to respondent No. 2 Ms. Bharti Monga as per Hindu Customs and ceremonies on 23.7.2000. From the wedlock one female child named Akanksha Monga was born on 17.9.2001. It is alleged in the complaint that after marriage most of the time, the respondent No. 2/complainant had been living and accompanying her husband at different places and countries. It is stated that from October, 2002 to January, 2004 she had accompanied her husband to Muscat and thereafter from 26.7.2005 onwards she along with Vikas Monga and their daughter Akanksha had migrated to Canada.

It is alleged that in December, 2005 Vikas Monga had expressed his desire to come back to India to attend the marriage of his cousin brother. Respondent No. 2 is stated to have expressed her unwillingness to come to India on account of the fact that both she and her husband had got the job recently.

It is further stated that since Vikas Monga was keen to attend the marriage, he along with his daughter came to India. Respondent No. 2 Bharti Monga also applied for leave and immediately thereafter, within a span of ten days, the respondent No. 2 also alleged to have landed in India. The petitioners alleged that they and their son was completely taken by surprise on seeing respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 started making false and frivolous complaints against the petitioners.

Curiously, it is stated that in June, 2006, Bharti Monga lodged a report with CAW Cell at Paharganj, New Delhi on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR u/s 498A, 406/34 of IPC was registered against Vikas Monga and his parents.

The petitioners are alleged to have obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of Sh. Rajiv Mehra, ASJ on 05.10.2006. The case of the petitioner is that the FIR and the consequent proceedings be quashed on account of the fact that at no point of time they lived with respondent/complaint who had mostly accompanied her husband. Even as on date, the respondent No. 2 is stated to have migrated to Canada and settled there permanently yet on account of having made a complaint by her that the petitioners who are old persons they are put to great deal of harassment and hence have prayed for quashing of FIR.

I have carefully perused the complaint and the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, has given seven illustrative contingencies in which an FIR/complaint can be quashed. One of the grounds on which the FIR/complaint can be quashed is that if from a plain reading of the FIR or complaint no cognizable offence is made out.

In the present case, I have perused the FIR and there is a definite allegation of subjecting the respondent No. 2 to cruelty by the husband and his parents on account of demand of dowry. Merely because the respondent No. 2 has migrated and settled in Canada permanently or the fact that the respondent No. 2 was most of time was living with her husband away from the petitioners cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. The allegation that the petitioners were living separately and not with the complainant is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. This can be decided only by the Trial Court after the parties are permitted to adduce evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered option that merely because of respondent No. 2 is living in Canada or that the respondent No. 2 herself was living with her husband on different occasions, it cannot be said that the FIR deserves to be quashed.

For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the ground which has been set out by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the present petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.