Dilbagh Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Another

  
        
  



!"#"

$% &''  &  (

    



























'''   ) *+) )        ''')  )
%

 ,( '

)
 

  








  
 

 
!"


 

 

#
$ ---- 

 

'

.(/ %

&




"

'($
)


*"


+,
#
$-'

$.

%% $.$%
 
"


/$/
/0'
/11
'.2
'-(3
0.2


,
4
)
%(2.
 4

 
!""

44
"5*"
 
 6

4





 $364
6
 64
5


4

)
 
7
!"" 
$( .- $.$%

6

5


+,
8"9
,

44 

 
64
5

 $



6


5 64
"5  


 %

.% .$ $.%2



 664
6

.$ %$ $.%2

 $





 %

&
"5


 $





664
6


$.3$0


6 



5

,4
&
 $( %% $.%1

"5
6

,


6

"


 "
 

6
6

:


5

 " 
5
6


4

"5


 $

 6






"

765
$.%(


6

 
6 


5334 



 $

6 ""4
4



4
5
 
 $

4 
5

"

4"





5 

64
4


4

5 
5

"5
;

"5 

 $
"

,4

<"
$.%-


6



"4
5
44

,4
5"

"
"
5

4
6
 4 
 %



"

 $

64 
&

 $
5
 
5

5"

 34 
"


4
6


$.%-
&
"
4 6



;

 $

5

 664
6

44
4
"6

"
5"


7

5

6"44
6

"
"

6 


4

 
"5
"

44


,4 


44







5


664
6

 
5

 

+,
8"9



 
)"
5






/

=
"4



   

 44 
444
 




5334

3 34


 $364

65"

 "
#
 4

5
5"


 
"
"56








664
4


 $


 

6
6

&
54

6


 

+64 ,
)


)





5 

>"
3$

>"
3/
4 '

=
"4


 $364


 "




44 
*"





+, 8"9



"
"


44 


5
 )"









=

"4
"56

4


$1 .% $.$$ 
5

 





+,


6 6
5

4
"4




6

4 
"56 

)"
"4

 "
"

"
*"



  




4
"4





" 










5
4 4
6

 $



4


664
4
& 44 
444
5

 $
 


4" 
" 
"

3


46

5
46

64
54 44 
#


6

6

6


44  6
5

64
*"






6 
"  

64


"4
5

"5




,4
,

 4

 
)"
"4



"
*"


4 >


 
"

)

)64
"


6 "4
5
"

6  





"

 
"

 
)"
6"

5
"6

4

"6

&









44 
444

+, ?)64
 4"

6 
6

"""4"

@"
4

 3 "  


A54
"6
)"











     
         


*"
  
 

"3"5

"


+,
"
 /$/
'.2
'-(
0.2

,)


"

44 
4
 

+, 
>"4
 
$




 


" 
<"
< 
 4
44 
5

6









3


      

 

   



  


    



     

  



 

   



    !

"  

  



"







  " # # $

%& 

 "  "  



     

 

  $



' &  & (   



  




   

"

$

     



    

"  "

"





  $



  

$ & 

 * 



+ , +

 

(     



&

   $

&    $

& 

( 

 -&   



 $ 

 

  



 

 * 



+ , +

 



 

$  

. +& &   



  $  $  

+&   





"





+" 

,

&

+

%





 &"

&  $  

  -&  "

(   "

 /0  

  &  

+  /0  

&







 

+&   /0   $

&



 

-&

(((((( (((((( (((((( 

% +& 








! "

#

 $ #    % &

''(
) % ''    

&

/0

   

    &1 #

!

   $ 



    "  

 "  

 

$



$



 





 $







$  

    $ 

&  "   



$









$   

  "  "  & 

& 

'

(   -&  & 

 * 



+  

. +& $&     

"2 &

3& $  



3&  



   $    



 



& $&  

& 

%  

&  





4&

4&  

  & &  

 &"



   



 "

+& & 

 &"

  -& &

(       &  2

 

  

 &"

 

  



&  



  $& 

 &"



  

 

"     &



       



 



"

"



    &"

   



&   #  & 

&     &  &

 

%





( 



$ & 

 * 



+

  

  

 $



. +& "

( 

 $ &  

  

 5



 

&





 

 

&   $



&



 

-&

& "

 

  +& 

    * + , -&%% & 

../0





& $ $

    

$ & 

(            





%

&

        +& 





$1 /0 '



  "



 "   

"  

  

2

  

&

 

   

    "

 &

  

 "2

&



  

& 

/0 '



  

 "     "  

 

"   


   



 5



 -&  

  



 & 

 6!/0 



+

(

 &   

7

$ 

& 

 66/0 



+

/80 '



&  

 

  "



 



"     





 & 



"

  





"" 

  

  "2

&



  

& 

/0 '



  

 

 

 &

 5



&

 &

   #  5



 

   "   ,

$&  

7



  "   & 

 66/0 



+

/60 '



  "




 

"   

 &      "

 

 

$   &  

 -&



&  

 &

& 

 

    

& 

/!0 '





( 





    



   



+

 





/&  $ 

" 



    & 0  

 &  

  &







   : $



 

  

+

 





   

&  

 









 

/;0 '

" 



   " 

     $ "



 : $





   " &   &  $ &  "

 $ 2 



 

&    $

 

"

&

  

    

&

< 6

   "



" 



 "





  $

 

  $&    

   

 



" 

 &      & &







 



&

%

& $ &  &-



 

 

"    & &  

  & "

 $  

    

& 

   $    

"

  $ 





-





 

   &

" 

  "

 &   $



& 

"

"" 

&

(((((( (((((( (((((( 

%

 

& 

  

 

   

 

 

 

& 

  

 

)

&"   

. +& $ -&  

"2  &

3&   

& &

 

  



 

( 



   $ & 

 * 



+ , +

 





  

  

"" 

 5





$    

&



& 

 



&  



.)  

 1 2 3  

#4



5     

* + ,   

6

# 4

     (7 84 2 9  # 9  

2

 :2  # 9    2   9 2 3# #    

  2    2      9      

     

##;

(((((( (((((( ((((((







 &

"

 

 +& < 9
 =>  

?!=> .

>, %/ &   



& /4 =

,$  0 



 





 * 



+,+ $

(" 

%    $ 

  $

& 

"





. +& 2 

 

  $ & 

 * +,+  

(  -&  &  

!





+ &    


  

" 



  3& 

 

  

&   &  

  

" 

 

  & 

(&   &  $ 

&  "



$ 2 



 

& 

 &"

 

. +& $ & 

2   


 $



 



"





 $

& 

   $



&

 

+& 

2   

"

 "




:

"   

 

&





   $  

     

 &



  





    

  & 

(& 

  

& $ & 

2   "     

 &"

"

 

"



 







  



"

  



 $ &



 

 &"

      

$



< 7.

Similarly, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 239 quashed the FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC against the mother-in-law and brotherin-law of the complainant and observed that the allegations were mostly general and omnibus in nature making them incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Speaking through Justice Sanjay Kumar, the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. qua quashing of FIR stemming from offence under Section 498-A was also deliberated upon and the following observations were made: "12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

, 1973 It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v.

866) and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others

[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

xxx xxx xxx

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the `be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.

8.

Pertinently, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 quashed the complainant against the sister-in-law of the complainant noting that the sole purpose of filing the complaint was to humiliate her and allowing criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law. Speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, the following was observed: "34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law."



9.

Time and again, the Courts have highlighted the tendency of roping in all and sundry members of the husband's family in cases filed under Section 498-A of the IPC. Recently, a two Judge bench the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi and others v. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 494/2023 decided on 30.11.2023 quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband's sisters and cousins and observed that if the allegations are not serious and substantiated, and there is no clear evidence of accused's involvement in the complainant's marital life, they cannot be implicated under Section 498-A of the IPC. 10.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and consequently, +,
#

$-'

$.

%% $.$%
 
"

/$/
/0'
/11
'.2
'-(3 0.2


,
4
)
%(2.

4

 
!""
 44
"5*"
 

6 are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

.

 / &''  &

 - >$" 89 ;
 ? B?# 89 ;
54 B?#