SALIL CHADHA Vs. STATE OF U T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 26.04.2007, registered under Section 498-A IPC and Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-4) lodged at the instance of respondent no.2.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition as recapitulated by the petitioner is being delineated. The petitioner was married to Priya Chadha on 29.05.1988. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant. At the time of marriage respondent no.2 was a student in Home Science College, Chandigarh. The couple was blessed with two daughters. The eldest was 16 years old at the time of filing of the petition. The younger one was 12 years old. Respondent no.2 after completing her graduation in Home Science did her Post Graduation in Nutrition and Dietetics, besides post graduation and Mass Communication from Punjab University and Kurukshetra University respectively after marriage. All went well for next 10 years. The petitioner claims that the wife along with two daughters left his company in early 1997. He filed an application under the Guardian and Wards Act, firstly at Gurdaspur which was not entertained for want of jurisdiction and then in the Guardian Court at Panchkula. Interim custody of the elder child was given to him. The reason disclosed was that the child was constantly absent from school and the school had threatened to strike off her name. A revision was preferred against the interim order in the High Court in 1998. An amicable settlement took place. The agreement bound both the sides and a judicial order was passed. The terms and conditions were made part of the interim order dated 20.02.1998, which was subsequently made absolute on 10.08.1998. Both the parties agreed to bury their differences and withdraw all allegations against each other in order to save the matrimonial home. The petitioner claims that the family lived together in a house at Sector 16, Chandigarh but due to the reprehensive behaviour of respondent no.2 and verbal abuses in front of the servants and neighbours he was forced to leave the house in September 2006 after being together for 8 years. It was pleaded that he had never abdicated his duties nor shirked his duties and never left his family in any financial lurch. Though respondent no.2 had never worked till December 2006, there was enough money in her bank account by way of FDRs, deposits in post office and a personal car whose installments he was paying. It was pleaded that the petitioner moved out of the house and respondent no.2 broke open the locks of his room and destroyed his official documents, certificates, expensive heirlooms and artifacts. It was pleaded that the High Court had directed in its order of 1998 that his room would remain locked and the order was violated. It was pleaded that the petitioner all throughout had been supporting the family of respondent no.2 which was not financially sound as the sole male earning member of the family i.e. her brother had been dismissed from service. It was pleaded that respondent no.2 started filing criminal complaints and made up stories as if she was a victim of torture and cruelty in 19 years of marriage when there was not even a whisper of any allegation prior to September 2006. It was pleaded that the motivation for registration of the FIR was when the younger daughter came to stay with him and respondent no.2 in order to wreck personal vengeance concocted a story. It was pleaded that the younger daughter moved with him in February 2007 and respondent no.2 filed the first complaint on 18.02.2007, followed by a second complaint on 28.02.2007 and she made improvements and the third complaint was made on 05.03.2007 on which FIR (Annexure P-4) was registered.

(3.) Petitioner's plea is that vague allegations have been made of cruelty, harassment and allegations of abortion soon after their marriage were hollow and concocted and respondent no.2 had resorted to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to settle personal scores. It was pleaded that the police had recorded the statements of neighbours and some of them had made a statement in his favour which were not filed along with the challan and the proceedings were a mis-use of law and the case had been registered to gain unethical advantage in the matrimonial dispute and was barred by limitation as well. It was pleaded that the police did not file any complaint under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act and challan had only been presented under Section 498-A of IPC, which was liable to be quashed.