MADAN MOHAN SETHI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 292/2002 PS Hauz Khas under Section 406/498 A/34 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Mrs. Annie Sethi wherein she had alleged that she was married to Dr. Rajesh Sethi on 17th May, 1996. There was entrustment of dowry and istridhan including gold and diamond ornaments etc. to the petitioners. She accompanied Dr. Rajesh Sethi to Brooklyn USA. She gave a description of alleged cruelty meted out to her at USA at the hands of her husband. Her mother stayed with her at USA for some time during birth of child. A male child was born to her on 20th February, 1997. Her mother came back in May 1997 to India. The couple returned to India in November, 1997. While Dr. Rajesh Sethi left for USA on 1st December, 1997 she stayed back at her in-laws house. She submitted that her husband promised of returning to India in July, 1998, after completing his Residency however, he did not return. Thereafter, she described the conduct of her in-laws with her. She made allegations about her harassment for not bringing sufficient dowry and asking her to demand a house from her parents. She was asked to sign certain documents which she refused. She alleged that she was forced to leave the house of her in-laws in April, 1998 itself. Her husband went to Arkansas to work in a hospital and filed a law suit against her in Arkansas for divorce. She replied to the Court at Arkansas, USA that the Court at US had no jurisdiction.

(2.) She alleged that she had requested the petitioners (her in laws) to return her istridhan but instead of returning her istridhan she was given filthy abuses. Her husband deserted her and she was subjected to cruelties and dowry demands.

(3.) Quashing of FIR is sought by the petitioner on the grounds that (i) reading of the FIR and the material available on record does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners as alleged by the respondent. (ii) The investigating agency did not appreciate that due to passage of time (delay in lodging complaint) a valuable right had accrued to the petitioners, which ought not to be disturbed mechanically by registration of FIR. (iii) The complaint was vague. Complainant had concealed the fact that divorce has been granted by the Court at USA and the decree of divorce granted by the Court has not been challenged so far. (iv) It was the complainant herself, who had refused to join her husband at USA. (v) The role of each accused was not specified by the complainant in her complaint. (vi) The investigating agency had unfairly investigated the matter and (vii) The story given by the complainant was false.