RAHUL SHUKLA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners namely Rahul Shukla, Nidhi Shukla, Rachna @ Rachna Shukla and Asha Rani @ Asha Shukla have filed instant petition for quashing of FIR No.47 dtd. 23/4/2022 under Ss. 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Facts of the case are, complainant Ravinder Singh filed complaint against Rahul Shukla - husband, Yash Pal Shukla - father-in-law, Asha Shukla mother-in-law, Rachna Shukla and Nidhi Shukla sisters-in-law of complainant's daughter. Complainant stated that marriage of his daughter Neha Chalana was settled through matrimonial website shaadi.com. Accused No.1 Rahul Shukla proposed to his daughter for marriage. Complainant and his family went to Faridabad Haryana to meet parents of Rahul Shukla. Engagement ceremony was fixed in April and the marriage was to take place sometime by end of 2018. Family of accused No.1 insisted for marriage in April itself so that Rahul could apply his daughter's visa for going to Sydney Australia where he was living for the last 10/11 years. It was difficult for Rahul to visit India time and again to complete the formalities and ultimately their marriage was fixed for 13/4/2018. The marriage ceremony took place in Chandigarh. Complainant made all arrangements for the stay of Rahul's family. They were given gold ornaments as per their demand as detailed in the FIR. After marriage, Neha and Rahul left for Shimla. All the expenses were borne by him. During their stay in Shimla, Rahul started checking his daughter's mobile without her consent and found photographs of her with past relation. Everything was made clear to accused No.1 before marriage and at that time he clearly stated that he was not interested in her past and he just wanted to spend his life with his daughter in present and future. His daughter Neha made her husband understand on this point. They came back to Chandigarh on 17/4/2018 and stayed with the family for a day and then left for Faridabad. His daughter stayed with her in-laws for 2 weeks. She wanted to accompany her husband to Sydney as she was having tourist visa for Australia. Accused No.1 told her that after reaching Australia, he will complete all the formalities. Finally, Rahul Shukla went back to Sydney on 26/4/2018 whereas she went to Qatar Doha on 3/5/2018 where she was working. Neha and her husband used to talk over the phone and disagreements started regarding their long distance relationship. Finally, his daughter left her job and joined the company of her husband on 17/5/2018 by taking a flight from Qatar to Sydney. Finally, they stayed in shared house with another couple and later-on shifted to other apartment taken on rent. Sometimes his daughter Neha and her husband used to have disagreement but she always tried to calm him down. On 9/6/2018 Rahul again started arguments regarding her past relationship. In order to settle their matrimonial life, son of complainant and his wife came to Sydney from Melbourne on 10/6/2018 and they tried to sort out the things. Rahul did not like the interference in his personal and domestic life and he even told Neha to stop having any relationship with her brother. Neha told him that it was not possible for her to break relationship with her brother. Again arguments started between husband and wife. Complainant has narrated incidents which took place with his daughter during her stay with her husband in Sydney. Complainant alleged that Rahul was raising issue about past relationship of his daughter with her ex-boyfriend time and again. She was treated with cruelty as Rahul and her parents wanted to get more dowry from the complainant and his daughter. His daughter suffered on account of beating and unhuman treatment given to her by her husband. She was 3-4 weeks pregnant. They started having quarrel regarding bank account. Husband of the complainant's daughter apologized several times but there was no change in his behaviour. Finally, Neha decided to leave the company of her husband Rahul. She took financial help of her brother who booked flight from Sydney to Melbourne. After reaching the airport, Neha informed the police on emergency number. Police reached at Airport and helped her in boarding the flight. She lodged formal complaint regarding domestic violence. When Rahul found that Neha had left the house, he contacted the complainant in India. Complainant also called Rahul's family to tell about the conduct of their son. They did not want to rehabilitate Neha. They insisted as per their promise, she was to bring Rs.8.00 lakhs after marriage as dowry but she never brought the said money. Even Rahul's sister abused the complainant on phone. Rahul also tried to malign the image of his daughter by sending and calling all of their family members and friends through whatsapp and facebook. He even insisted that Neha was not carrying his child in her womb. Complainant further alleged that Rahul had deposited money belonging to Neha in his account which she had received at the time of resigning her job at Qatar. Rahul had raised demand of money to buy a car in Sydney. His daughter was ill-treated by the accused persons on account of their demand from time to time. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner No.1 is law abiding citizen of Australia holding Overseas citizenship of India. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are also law abiding citizens of India. All allegations levelled against them are false and without any basis. Contents of FIR clearly indicate that after marriage of Rahul Shukla with Neha on 13/4/2018, Rahul Shukla went back to Australia on 26/4/2018 whereas Neha went to Qatar Doha on 3/5/2018. Thereafter, Neha joined the company of her husband Rahul by taking flight from Qatar to Sydney on 17/5/2018. Matrimonial dispute started between the couple during their stay in Sydney, Australia. All allegations levelled against petitioners regarding maltreatment on account of demand of dowry are without any basis. Neha daughter of the complainant filed false and frivolous case in Australia against Rahul Shukla. Copy of Court Order Notice dtd. 5/4/2019 is Annexure P-2. At present, marriage of Rahul Shukla and Neha Chalana has been dissolved by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia vide order dtd. 12/9/2019 (Annexure P-3). Entire matrimonial dispute between Neha Chalana and Rahul Shukla regarding domestic violence and dissolution of marriage have been decided in Australia by the Competent Courts. Without considering the aforesaid factual position, present FIR was registered without any basis. Asha Rani, Rachna and Nidhi Shukla filed anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR No.47 dtd. 23/4/2022 under Ss. 406 and 498-A of IPC, Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh in which they were granted interim relief which was made absolute vide order dtd. 1/8/2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (Annexure P-4). At present, challan is also presented in the said FIR (Annexure P-5). Nidhi Shukla had filed CRM-M-55540-2024 i.e. writ under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside Look Out Circular and all consequent proceedings in the aforesaid FIR in which interim relief was granted by this High Court vide order dtd. 6/11/2024 (Annexure P-6). Rahul Shukla was granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dtd. 23/12/2024. At present Neha Shukla daughter of the complainant has performed second marriage and she has moved ahead. She is still residing abroad. Registration of aforesaid FIR and proceedings thereunder are without any basis. Petitioners are involved in this FIR on the basis of false and baseless allegations of maltreatment on account of demand of dowry. In-fact, no incident took place in India to justify the registration of present FIR. With these arguments, it is submitted that FIR No.47 dtd. 23/4/2022 (Annexure P-1) and the challan presented against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and subsequent proceedings thereon may kindly be quashed.