MANISH KALRA & ORS Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.390/2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at PS Chitranjan Park, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR got registered by respondent No.2 at Delhi is a clear abuse of the process of law. Even accepting the averments in the complaint, no case for cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC is made out. The FIR discloses no allegations against the petitioners especially petitioners No.3 and 4 except for casual references of their names. Petitioners No.2 to 4 never resided with the respondent No.2 at the matrimonial home. The matrimonial home of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was at Mumbai whereas petitioners No.3 and 4 have been residents of Singapore from 2008-2014 and Hong Kong since 2014. The pleas taken by the petitioner for quashing of FIR are not in the nature of defence nor are disputed questions of facts. Since it is the admitted case of the respondent No.2 that petitioner No.1 and respondent No2 have not resided together since the year 2009, thus the allegations are at least 5 years prior to the registration of the FIR. FIR has been got registered after 5-6 years of the date of allegations and thus cognizance on a charge-sheet filed on such allegations would be barred by limitation as per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as M. Saravana Porselvi Vs. A.R. Chandrashekhar and Others., (2008) 11 SCC 520; Chandralekha and Others. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others., (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Swapnil and Others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567. Divorce proceedings are pending before the Mumbai Court filed by the petitioner No.1 in June 2009 and till date respondent No.2 has not claimed any istridhan in the said proceedings at Mumbai.

(3.) Though no affidavit in response to the petition has been filed by the respondent No.2, she has filed an affidavit disclosing that the three petitioners did not appear in the Mediation proceedings referred to by this Court in the present petition, though the respondent No.2 went all the way from Delhi to Mumbai.