Kuldeep Singh vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

Crl. M. No. 38521 of 2013

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M. No. M-28724 of 2013

The present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 784, dated 19.11.2011, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Gurgaon City, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

Petitioner is husband of respondent no. 2. The contents of FIR reads as under:-

I Seema Singh (Mob No. 8447034337) w/o Dr. Kuldeep Singh Sehrawat (Agriculture, NCERT, Kataria Sarai, South Delhi, Mobile 8527332037, 9210049571, Office Phone No. 011-265519154, 011-26964712, 011-26566509, 011-26864816) House Address: 312/1, New Railway Road, Gol Dakhana, Gurgaon, Near Bus Stand and 1196-B Block, Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (two houses); I d/o Sukhbir Singh Sejwal (Ex. Indian Air Force), Address F-205B, Lado Sarai, Gali Banda, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-30, my father''s mobile no. (8447034327) am registering the following complaint against my husband that my husband after marriage till date by physically and mentally harassing me and my children beyond the limits of humanity and with brutal beating has thrown out of his house since last year (one year) and has kept away my children from me by admitting them in boarding school disproportionately lower than his income. My husband despite being a professor is addicted to alcohol and drugs and keeps extra-marital relations with outside women and indulge in gambling and "sattabaji", and all the time indulges in cars, mobiles, clothes, shoes and costly luxuries. Till date due to my compulsions, I am living in my parent''s house and he has not bothered to give me a single penny. He beats me brutally for his unreasonable demands and with the intention of usurping the share of my children, by keeping their share under his control, has unlawfully filed a petition for divorce and is forcing me for mutual divorce and has threatened to get me killed like a dog, if I would not sign the papers for mutual divorce. You are requested to lodge an FIR against my husband and initiate legal action and provide justice for me and my children because me and my three children have fear of life from my husband and therefore, I would also like to request to provide protection to me and my children and I shall be obliged for the same. Thanks.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the complainant after about 12 years of the marriage as the marriage was solemnized in the year 1998. It is also contended that as per order of this Court passed in Crl. M. No. M-37768 of 2011 filed by the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C., he is bearing expenses of education of children as they are staying in a hostel of a residential School. It is also contended that he already filed a divorce petition against respondent-complainant and that the present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to the same.

Law on the point has been settled by Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, Supreme Court 604, wherein it was observed as under:-

In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

The same law was reiterated by Hon''ble Apex Court in subsequent cases, i.e., Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 92 and Dharmatma Singh Vs. Harminder Singh and Others, ) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 262 : (2011) 6 SCC 102.

In a recent judgment rendered in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, Hon''ble Apex Court interpreted the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible not desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.

Hence, this Court is to see as to whether any ground is made out for quashing of FIR as reproduced above in the light of aforementioned law settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

In this case, interim relief of bail already granted to the petitioner-accused in a separate petition in which order was also passed by this Court to bear expenses of his children who are studying in a boarding school and petitioner is paying Rs. 30,000/- per month for their maintenance as well as for education of children. Both the parties are highly qualified. Allegations were levelled by both the parties against each other. In the present complaint, specific allegations have been levelled by complainant against the petitioner that he is living in adultery besides his other bad habits. There are also allegations that he used to give her brutal beatings and had thrown her out of the house. There are also allegations that he is forcing her for giving him mutual divorce despite the fact that three children were born out of the marriage and when she refused to sign the papers for divorce, acts of cruelty were committed upon her. There are also allegations that petitioner-accused raised threat to kill her and that she would die a dog''s death. She was under the fear of her life as well as life of her children at the hands of the petitioner. She also made a request to higher police officials to provide protection of her life as well as life of her children. Case is at the initial stage of investigation. Investigation could not be completed and challan could not be filed as petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail in which interim relief was granted to him which is still pending. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any case for quashing of FIR is made out. The present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.