Delhi High Court
Rajan Bhatia & Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 5 August, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14th May, 2025
% Pronounced on: 05th August, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 1889/2017, CRL.M.A. 7727/2017, CRL.M.A. 16635/2017,
CRL.M.A. 13971/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15250/2021
1. RAJAN BHATIA
Sh. Rajan Bhatia,
S/o Late Sh. R.K.Bhatia,
R/o D-149, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
2. SMT. KRISHNA BHATIA,
W/o Sh. Rajan Bhatia,
R/o D-149, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi.
3. SH. SAURAV BHATIA,
S/o Sh. Rajan Bhatia,
R/o 36, Sturdee Road,
30-15 Kerrisdale,
Singapore-207855.
.....Petitioners
Through: P-2 in person
versus
1. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Through Police Station
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
2. SHHANYA MADAN BHATIA
D/o Late Sh. Amrik Singh Madan,
R/o WZ-106/125, 1st Floor,
Rajouri Garden Extension,
New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 1 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State with SI Vikar, P.S. Rajouri
Garden
Mr. Prashant Mendiratta,
Ms. Somyashree, Ms. Neha Jain,
Ms.Veenu Singh and Mr. Taarak
Duggal, Advocates for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 & CRL.M.A. 14475/2022
1. RAJAN BHATIA
S/o Late Sh. R.K.Bhatia,
R/o 2921, Ferrara Tower,
Mahagun Mezzaria,
Sector-78, Noida,
U.P.-201301
2. SMT. KRISHNA BHATIA,
W/o Sh. Rajan Bhatia,
R/o 2921, Ferrara Tower,
Mahagun Mezzaria,
New Delhi.
.....Petitioners
Through: P-2 in person
versus
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through Police Station
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
2. SHHANYA MADAN BHATIA
D/o Late Sh. Amrik Singh Madan,
Rio WZ-106/125, Ist Floor,
Rajouri Garden Extension,
New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 2 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State with SI Vikar, P.S. Rajouri
Garden
Mr. Prashant Mendiratta,
Ms.Somyashree, Ms. Neha Jain,
Ms.Veenu Singh and Mr. Taarak
Duggal, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing
of the FIR No. 0936/2016 dated 27.12.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34
IPC registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden.
2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No. 1/Rajan Bhatia and Petitioner No.
2/Krishna Bhatia are the parents-in-law and Petitioner No. 3/Saurav Bhatia
is the Husband of the Complainant/Shannya Madan Bhatia/Respondent No.
2. The Respondent No. 2 got married to Petitioner No. 3 on 13.12.2002
according to Hindu customs and rites. Sourav Bhatia was pursuing his MBA
in Singapore and Respondent No. 2 his wife joined him in Singapore on
10.10.2003, i.e. after about ten months. Since then, they have been residing
together in Singapore. A Son was born from their wedlock on 11.02.2005,
who has been brought up in Singapore. Since 07.10.2005 till 18.06.2014,
Petitioner No. 3 got a permanent job in City Bank, Singapore.
3. Respondent No. 2 came back to India for delivery of the child in
August, 2004 and went back to Singapore on 07.10.2005, when the child
was about 08 months old and since then they have been staying in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 3 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
Singapore. Both Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 acquired a
Permanent Residency in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
4. It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 3 on 10.10.2003, while they
were staying in Singapore on their matrimonial home at West Coast Park at
Kentish Lodge, Singapore, they shifted to another accommodation at
Melville Park, Semei Street 1, Singapore from June, 2011 and thereafter,
shifted to 30, Sturdee Road, 20-05, Kerrisdale, Singapore. These facts have
been narrated by Respondent No. 2 in her Guardianship Petition as well as
in FIR that her matrimonial home is in Singapore.
5. It is further detailed that the child started attending Halifax
Montessori in 2007 and thereafter, joined NPS International School,
Singapore in the year 2014. They also bought an Apartment on 08.06.2011
in Singapore in the joint name, which again establishes that their
matrimonial home is in Singapore.
6. The Petitioners have submitted that on 24.04.2014, a fight was
initiated by the Respondent No. 2 in Singapore and Petitioner No.
3/Husband was constrained to call the Cops and he moved to a separate
rented accommodation along with his bag and baggage in Singapore, on
26.04.2014. Aggrieved by the cruel and torturous acts of the Respondent
No. 2, he instituted a Suit for Divorce and for custody of the child in Family
Court, Singapore. The Respondent No. 2 was duly served with the Notice of
the Petition on 28.05.2014 by the Court Bailiff, in Singapore itself.
7. The father of Respondent No. 2 expired on 17.06.2014 and on the
pretext of attending funeral of her father; Respondent No. 2 came back to
India on 18.06.2014 by giving an undertaking to Petitioner No. 3 that she
shall bring back the child to the jurisdiction of Singapore within a month’s
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 4 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
time. Since the Divorce-cum-Custody Petition was pending in Singapore
Court and the Passport of the minor child was with the Counsel for the
Petitioner No. 3, an Undertaking was given by the Respondent No. 2 at the
instance of Indian Embassy, Singapore. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2
engaged a Solicitor Firm and duly acquiesced to the proceedings in
Singapore Court.
8. The Respondent No. 2, however, breached her Undertaking and after
coming to India, filed a false and frivolous FIR No. 0160/2014 under
Sections 354/506/509 IPC against the Petitioners, at Dehradun. She also
instituted a Custody Petition under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
before the Family Court, Dehradun on 28.06.2014.
9. In the meanwhile, Singapore Family Court passed an interim
judgment dated 30.07.2014 for dissolving the marriage between the
Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2.
10. Also, in India, Dehradun Police completed the investigations in the
FIR No. 0160/2014 and filed a Cancellation Report dated 31.07.2014
wherein after the investigations, it was concluded that this Complaint had
been filed by the Respondent No. 2 after the Divorce proceedings were
initiated in Singapore and no part of the Offence was committed in
Dehradun. It was further noted that from the evidence and the statement of
the Complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., no offence under Sections
354/506/509 IPC was made out, even remotely. Furthermore, the Petitioners
No. 1 and 2 being the in-laws of Respondent No. 2 never visited Singapore
and also never stayed with her and she had no relations with her in-laws.
The Cancellation Report dated 31.07.2014 was thus, submitted in the case.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 5 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
11. The Respondent No. 2 dissatisfied with the Cancellation Report,
preferred a Representation to Senior Police Officials. An Order of re-
investigation was made and a new IO Jeevan Singh Rawat was appointed.
However, he also after conducting the Investigations since the inception of
the case came to the conclusion that Cancellation Report was correct and
no Offence was disclosed against the Petitioners. It was also noted that
Respondent No. 2 had filed a false case of Rape against her husband and in-
laws. Basically, it was a Civil Case of divorce in Singapore, which has been
given a criminal color in Dehradun.
12. In the meantime, Singapore Family Court passed an order dated
06.11.2014 directing the Respondent No. 2 to return the child back to the
jurisdiction of Singapore i.e. his habitual residence. The final judgment of
divorce was made on 09.04.2015 by Family Court, Singapore.
13. It is further submitted that not having got any favorable Orders in FIR
No. 0160/2014 in Dehradun, she with a mala fide intent, filed a false and
frivolous Criminal Complaint on 20.03.2016 with the SHO, Rajouri Garden
essentially on similar allegations as in the Complaint filed before the
Dehradun Police. She further made allegations in regard to kidnapping of
the child.
14. The Complaint was investigated and a Closure Report dated
21.04.2016 was filed by the IO. He noted that allegations leveled by
Respondent No. 2 could not be substantiated during the enquiry. Insofar as
the custody of the child was concerned, she could take legal recourse. No
evidence was found to substantiate the allegations for the Offences
punishable under Sections 406/420/498A/506/325/375/377/34 IPC and the
Complaint was accordingly closed.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 6 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
15. The Respondent No. 2 did not stop there and filed the third
Complaint dated 08.04.2016 before Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura
against all the Petitioners under the same Sections i.e.
406/420/498A/506/325/376/34 IPC. The third Complaint was identical to
the second Complaint that was filed at P.S. Rajouri Garden.
16. In the meanwhile, the IO sent a request for seeking Legal opinion
from Assistant Public Prosecutor and Chief Public Prosecutor at Dwarka.
Both the Prosecutors gave separate legal Opinions dated 13.07.2016 and
20.07.2016 respectively, wherein it was opined that no Cognizable Offence
was made out under Sections 498A/406 IPC. Further, the Public Prosecutor,
South-West District, Dwarka while observing that no Offence was made
out, also noted that no incident happened in India for an Offence under
Section 498A IPC and thus, was not within the jurisdiction of Delhi.
Moreover, there were no specific allegations in regard to the Offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC and therefore, no Offence was made out.
17. In the light of these legal Opinions from two Authorities, the
Complaint filed before CAW Cell, Nanakpura was closed on 11.08.2016.
The information about this Closure Report was provided to Respondent No.
2 under her RTI Application.
18. This matter was again referred back by the Respondent No.2 on
22.04.2016, after getting a letter addressed from Smt. Maneka Sanjay
Gandhi, Hon’ble Minister of Women and Child Development, stating that
an action ought to be initiated against the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 who are
available in Delhi, to bring back the Child. On this letter, Commissioner of
Police sought a report from Joint Commissioner of Police, South-West
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 7 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
range. An enquiry was also ordered by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
which was duly conducted by DCP as well as ACP, West District.
19. Two separate Reports were prepared by ACP and DCP, Rajouri
Garden wherein it was again submitted that the allegations leveled by the
Respondent No. 2 in regard to cruelty by in-laws and custody of the child,
have been investigated by different Agencies and is pending in different
Courts. It would not be appropriate to initiate any further action in this
matter and no Police action was required.
20. Relentless, the Respondent No. 2 filed a fifth Complaint dated
03.10.2016 against the Petitioners, with CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar. On the
basis of which the present FIR No. 0936/2016 dated 27.10.2016 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered and even the Chargesheet has
been filed on 27.11.2020 before the learned Trial Court.
21. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were placed in Column No. 12 of FIR
despite which, all the Petitioners were summoned by the learned Trial Court
vide Order dated 08.04.2021.
22. By way of the aforesaid two Petitions, quashing of the FIR as well
as the Summoning Order has been sought.
23. The grounds are that the Respondent No. 2 did not intentionally
disclose true facts to Kirti Nagar Women Cell as well as to the P.S. Rajouri
Garden. She intentionally concealed filing of one FIR and three Complaints
in which similar/identical averments were made and in all those Complaints
after due investigations, Closure Reports have been filed.
24. It is further submitted that the present FIR tantamount to a second FIR
arising from the same set of transactions, which have already been
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 8 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
investigated into by the Appropriate authorities on various occasions, which
is not permissible.
25. In this regards reliance is placed on T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala,
2001 (6) SCC 181, wherein it was held that the registration of a second FIR,
which is not a cross case, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The
ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts
of the present case inasmuch as the the FIR registered at Dehradun and in
the subsequent Complaint filed in Delhi (which ended in Closure), is
nothing but an abuse of process and it is fit case for quashing of FIR
exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
26. It is further contended that the present FIR was a counterblast to the
Divorce Decree and the Custody Order passed by the Family Court,
Singapore as the Petitioner No. 3 and the Respondent No. 2 were domiciled
in Singapore for about last 11 years and were also having permanent
residency of Singapore. These facts about the Divorce and the Custody
Orders of Singapore Court, have not been intentionally disclosed in any of
the Complaints.
27. It is further asserted that the Complaint contains vague allegations
and does not disclose any Offence even if those allegations are assumed to
be true and correct.
28. Furthermore, no part of alleged offences was ever committed in Delhi
and thus, the FIR was without jurisdiction as per Section 188 Cr.P.C. It is
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 in her FIR has admitted that the
matrimonial home of the parties was in Singapore and all the alleged acts
were committed by the parties while in a domestic relationship in Singapore.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 9 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
No part of the said offences was committed in India and, therefore, the FIR
is also liable to be quashed as being without any territorial jurisdiction.
29. It is submitted that the detailed circumstances clearly substantiate that
the present proceedings are mala fide having been maliciously instituted
by Respondent No. 2 when the Petitioners have already been exonerated and
findings in this regard have been given by three different Police Stations
that the Criminal Complaints do not disclose any offence. Thereafter, the
registration of the present FIR No. 0936/2016 is nothing but an abuse of
process of the Court and is liable to be quashed.
30. Reliance has been placed on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supplementary I SCC 335 wherein it has been held that the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised by the High Court to either prevent
the abuse of process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of the
Justice.
31. Reliance has also been placed on State of Karnataka vs. M.
Devenderappa and Another, I (2002) SLT 248 and on Anand Kumar
Mohatta and Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home
and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 210, wherein similar observations have been made.
32. It is, therefore, submitted that the present FIR and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom including the Summoning Order dated 08.04.2021 are
liable to be quashed.
33. The Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein the
details as mentioned in the Chargesheet, are reiterated. It is further
submitted that FIR No. 160/2014 registered at Dehradun was closed by the
Dehradun Police on the ground that the Complainant has not resided in
Dehradun and no part of Offence was committed there.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 10 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
34. In the subsequent Complaints, Respondent No. 2 has claimed that she
had got married in India and does not agree with the Orders of Singapore
Court. Insofar as the custody of minor son is concerned, he was produced
before Child Welfare Committee, Kalkaji wherein he gave a statement that
he wanted to stay with his father. His statement was recorded and it was
directed that it would be appropriate for a Child to continue to be with his
father.
35. The present FIR was registered on the Complaint of Respondent No.
2, wherein She has alleged that Divorce proceedings conducted at Singapore
Court were one-sided and are not maintainable as per Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. She, along with her son, had come to India on 18.06.2014 on account
of demise of her father, with a few clothes and return Tickets. It is further
submitted that the investigations are still pending as the husband of the
Complainant is residing in Singapore and not joining the Investigations.
36. The Respondent No. 2 in her Reply has submitted that the marriage
negotiations commenced in the year 2001 and they got married according to
Hindu customs and rites on 13.12.2002. After their marriage, they stayed in
Delhi for a brief period and thereafter, they have been residing together in
Singapore since 10.10.2003. She has stated that since the day of marriage,
Petitioners have been bothering her with dowry demands; sometimes it
being for a luxury car and sometimes for cash and jewelry, but she kept on
hoping that things would settle with passage of time. Moreover, they made
the demand of her parental home being given to them and also retained her
stridhan, which has not been returned till date.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 11 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
37. She has alleged that at the time of her marriage, she was working. The
Petitioner No. 3 intending to go abroad for further studies left Respondent
No. 2 behind about which he never disclosed anything to her.
38. She further stated that when she was expecting their Child, she came
to India as it was difficult for her to manage all alone in a foreign country
for which the Petitioners created a big issue. The Child was born on
11.02.2005 in Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi but the Petitioners failed to take
care of her during her pregnancy and after the delivery of the Child.
39. She, along with the Child, went back to Singapore on 07.10.2005
when the Child was 08 months old. She claimed that Petitioners used to
cause physical and mental harassment to her all the time irrespective of the
place where she stayed.
40. In 2014, the Petitioner No. 3 used to give regular beatings to her. On
account of demise of her father, she had to come back to India suddenly but
he refused to give the passport of herself and their Child, which she was able
to get only after the intervention of Indian Embassy at Singapore.
41. She started staying in India and got the Child admitted in school in
Delhi. However, Petitioners conspired with some of the officials of Child
Welfare Committee and illegally took away the custody of the Child out of
the jurisdiction of the Courts in India.
42. The Respondent No. 2 filed various Complaints before CAW Cell but
every time, the Petitioners were able to manage everything by using their
influence. She has claimed that the Petitioners are trying to avoid the trial by
making false assertions, which cannot be permitted under law. She has been
a victim of harassment and abuse for the redressal of which, she filed the
various Complaints but unfortunately, no action has been taken.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 12 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
43. It is asserted that the marriage of the parties took place in India and
the Child was born in India and many a times, they stayed together in Delhi.
Therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction. The parties may have stayed at
Singapore but that does not take away the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts where
the marriage took place and the parties resided together on different
intervals. The insistence of the Petitioners that the matrimonial home was in
Singapore, appears to be based on some misconception of them. The Courts
in Singapore do not have jurisdiction to try the present FIR, as has also been
observed by a Competent Court at Delhi. The proceedings at Singapore do
not have any relevance to the present proceedings as they do not relate to the
atrocities committed by the Petitioners, in India or in Singapore, in any way.
44. The Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the Complaint made
under Sections 354/509 IPC at P.S. Dehradun has got nothing to do with the
present FIR. The Closure Report submitted by the Police after investigations
in the said FIR, is of no relevance to the present proceedings.
45. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Petition is without merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
46. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners
as well as the Respondent No. 2, who have essentially raised the same
arguments as have been detailed in the Petition.
Submissions heard and record as well as Written Submissions perused.
47. The Respondent No. 2 has stated in her Complaint, (on which FIR
No. 0160/2014 was registered under Sections 354/506/509 IPC at P.S.
Dehradun), that she had got married to Petitioner No.3 on 07.12.2002 at a
temple in Dehradun. Similar facts of the marriage having been performed in
Dehradun finds mention in the second Complaint as well. Though in the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 13 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
third Complaint dated 08.04.2016, it is asserted that after the marriage took
place on 07.12.2002 in a temple, the marriage function was organized by her
parents on 13.12.2002 at Dhaula Kuan, Delhi. It is the averments of the
Complainant herself that she got married in Dehradun.
48. It is further her own assertion that the Petitioner No. 3, her husband,
was doing his MBA in Singapore and she joined him in Singapore on
10.10.2003, i.e. after ten months of their marriage and they both resided
there, which was her matrimonial Home. Further, when she got pregnant,
she came to India for her delivery in August, 2004. The child was born on
11.02.2005. Thereafter, she along with the child, returned to Singapore on
07.10.2005, i.e. after about ten months. Since then, she had been residing
with Petitioner No. 3 in different Apartments in Singapore.
49. However, their marriage came under the turbulent weather in 2014,
when the Petitioner No. 3 initiated Divorce-cum-Custody proceedings
against her in the Family Court, Singapore. The Respondent No. 2 on
account of demise of her father on 17.06.2014 came back to India on
18.06.2014 but she got the Passport of herself and the child with the
intervention of Indian Embassy, Singapore where she gave an Undertaking
that she would return back to Singapore. However, after coming to India,
she did not return.
50. Instead, she filed her first Complaint dated 04.05.2014 before P.S.
Dehradun making allegations of dowry demand and of harassment against
all the three Petitioners. However, after due investigations, the Closure
Report was filed in this matter, which was also accepted by the Court.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 14 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
51. Undeterred, she on similar allegations filed her second Complaint
dated 20.03.2016 before SHO, Rajouri Garden, which, however, also met
the same and the Police after conducting investigations, closed it.
52. This did not stop her from filing an identical Complaint dated
08.04.2016 before CAW Cell, Moti Bagh. This time, opinion was taken by
the Investigating Agency from Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as Chief
Public Prosecutor and in the light of the facts alleged in the Complaint, the
Complaint was closed.
53. Thereafter, she approached the Minister of Women and Child
Development and got her recommendation vide Letter dated 22.04.2016
addressed to Commissioner of Police. The investigations were directed to be
again conducted again and after due investigations, it met with the same
fate.
54. Unsuccessfully pursuing the same Complaint four times, she filed her
fifth Complaint dated 07.10.2016 before CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi wherein similar allegations as made in the earlier four Complaints,
were made. This time, she succeeded in getting the FIR No. 0936/2016
under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC dated 27.12.2016, registered at P.S.
Rajouri Garden.
55. The question is whether in this background, the present FIR and
the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.
56. The first preliminary objection taken is that on behalf of Respondent
No.2 that since the Chargesheet has already been filed and the Petitioners
have been summoned vide Order dated 08.04.2021, the present Petition for
quashing of FIR is not maintainable.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 15 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
57. The Preliminary issue which thus needs to be considered is: Whether
the Petitioners can seek quashing of Chargesheet under Section 482Cr.P.C.,
once cognizance has been taken and Petitioners have been summoned by the
learned M.M.
58. This aspect was considered by the Apex Court in Shailesh bhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal
Appeal No. 1884/2013, decided on 28.08.2024, where it was categorically
held that if upon a reading of the contents of the FIR and the Chargesheet
together, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is satisfied that no offence is disclosed and that the
continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process
of the Court, then the FIR, even when the Chargesheet stands filed, may
be quashed.
59. The reason for doing so emerges from the observations of the Apex
Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC
59, wherein it was held that the power to examine whether a prima facie
case is made out or not, still vests with the High Court even after the
filing of the Chargesheet.
60. Similar observations were made in the case of Mamta Shailesh
Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 136, Anand
Kumar Mohatta vs. State(NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Abhishek vs.
State of M.P., (2023) 16 SCC 666, where the Apex Court has held that when
it comes to the power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process
of court or miscarriage of justice, there is no bar to exercising such power
even when the Chargesheet has already been filed. In such cases, where
no prima facie case is made out or where there are no specific allegations
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 16 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
against the accused, the continuation of proceedings would amount to a
travesty of justice.
61. From the aforesaid judgements, it emerges that the inherent power
of the High Court, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve
a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to be degenerated into a weapon of harassment or prosecution,
and his power can be exercised despite filing of Charge Sheet and the
Petitioner being summoned.
62. Thus, the Petition is maintainable before this Court and the
Preliminary Objection in regard to maintainability is without merit.
63. The second aspect is what are the circumstances and the parameters
which justify invocation of this extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
64. For proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisions
which seek to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice
between the State and its subjects, the width and contours of this salient
jurisdiction, need not be emphasized. This power to quash a proceeding is a
wholesome power which must be exercised only if the High Court comes to
the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require the
proceedings to be quashed.
65. The necessity of exercising this power, more so in criminal cases, was
highlighted by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State
of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy, 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 wherein it was
observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 17 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
rests and the like, would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings
in the interest of justice which are much higher than the ends of mere law
and justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the
Legislature.
66. The circumstances in which the exercise of inherent power must be
exercised to quash the proceedings, were detailed in R.P. Kapur vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 as follows:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance, example want of sanction;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
67. It was further explained that while dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no
legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations made and a case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations.
68. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 482 Cr.P.C., the High
Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its
accusation would not be sustained; that is the function of the Trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 18 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
69. Similar observations have been made in the case of Nagawwa vs.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736.
70. To ascertain the existence of any of these circumstances, i.e. no prima
facie case, averments being absurd and inherently improbable or manifestly
mala fide, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely, as was observed in the case of Mahmood Ali and Ors vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2023) 15 SCC 488.The chances of manipulation
of facts once a Complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, were highlighted. It was
noted that such an ill motivated Complainant would ensure that the
FIR/Complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/Complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence, are disclosed or not. In frivolous and vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the
averments made in the Complaint and if need be, due care and
circumspection must be exercised to try to read in between the lines.
71. To sum up, the Twin Test for exercising the inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Further, in the
aforementioned judgments, it was reiterated that where the FIR or the
Complaint even if taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do
not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the quashing of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 19 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
proceedings would be justified. Only stating cruelty has been committed by
the Appellants, would not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC.
72. In the light of aforesaid discussion, facts of this case may now be
considered to ascertain whether the circumstances justify quashing of FIR
registered under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC.
73. The facts of the case may now be considered to ascertain whether
the circumstances justify quashing of the Charge-Sheet.
74. The first aspect which emerges is whether second FIR on same
allegations, is maintainable.
75. The Respondent No.2 returned to India in June, 2014 on the demise of
her father and even brought the child with her by giving an undertaking that
she would be returning to Singapore, as the Divorce cum Custody Suit had
already been initiated against her in Singapore, by Petitioner No.3/Husband.
On return to India, she filed her first Complaint in Dehradun for registration
of FIR, but a Cancellation Report was filed therein. This was followed by
three similar Complaints in Delhi as detailed above, they all met with the
same fate of Investigating Authority concluding that there was no Offence
made out on the allegations and the Complaints were closed. It is the fifth
attempt of the Respondent No. 2, which got her the success in getting the
FIR No. 0936/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at P.S. Rajouri
Garden, registered.
76. The perusal of the five Complaints filed by the Respondent No. 2
show that the core allegations in all the Complaints were identical and
every time, the investigations did not find any cognizable offence disclosed
in any of the Complaints that the first Complaint at Dehradun, has resulted
in registration of FIR and after due investigations, a Closure Report was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 20 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
filed, which was in fact admitted by the Court. If the Respondent No. 2 was
aggrieved by the Closure Report, her remedy was to pursue the same before
the learned Trial Court. She cannot try her luck on the same allegations,
before different Forums. Her subsequent three Complaints and the fourth
Complaint culminating in the impugned FIR are based on essentially the
same allegations.
77. In the case of T.T. Anthony (supra), it was observed that when FIR is
registered under Section 156 Cr.P.C., prima facie, disclosing a cognizable
offence, the FIR is mandatorily required to be registered. The investigations
undertaken by the IO culminates in a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C,
which may be filing the Charge-sheet or a Closure Report. No fresh FIR is
required in case further information comes forth. In that situation, further
investigations can be carried out and supplementary Chargesheet filed under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. There is no occasion for second FIR to be
registered either on subsequent offence or on the same facts. It was further
observed that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs, the first and
the second, is in substance the same, then registering a second FIR and
making fresh investigations and forwarding the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C., would be irregular and no cognizance can be taken by the Court.
78. Likewise, the Apex Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI &
Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348, made similar observations that in case of fresh
investigations based on second successive FIR not being a Counter Claim,
filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to
have been committed in the course of same transaction and in respect of
which first FIR is registered in which investigations is underway, a Final
Report which has been filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the second FIR,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 21 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
is liable to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India.
79. In Prem Chand Singh vs. The State of U.P, MANU/SC/0136/2020, it
was held that mere addition of Sections in the subsequent FIR, cannot be
considered as different content to justify the second FIR by claiming it to be
based on different material, allegation or ground.
80. In Charu Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Pegasus Computers in Crl. M.C.
2163/2012 and Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & Ors. vs State & Ors. in Crl. M.c.
2324/2012, decided by this Court on 23.12.2021, it was held that where the
perusal of both the documents indicate that apart from elaboration of facts, there is
no distinction between the second Complaint and the FIR with there being no
justification for filing the second Complaint, the subsequent Complaint/FIR is
liable to be quashed.
81. Similarly, in Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. 2022 Live Law (SC) 731, it was held that registration of multiple FIRs
resulting in the Accused being entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the
same offence, is gross abuse of process of law. The successive registration of FIRs
on the same facts and allegations by the same informant, would not stands the
scrutiny of A. 21& A. 22 of Constitution of India.
82. The perusal of the contents of first FIR No. 0160/2014 followed by four
other Complaints show that they were based on same core allegations. Once the
Closure Report had been filed in the first FIR, there was no occasion in the
registration of subsequent FIR on the same allegations.
83. The FIR No. 0160/2014 along with Charge-Sheet and proceedings
therefrom, are liable to be quashed on this ground itself.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 22 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
84. The second aspect is whether this second FIR even prima facie
discloses the allegations to sustain S.498-A/ S. 406 IPC against the Petitioners,
who are the parents-in-law and husband of the Complainant.
85. The Respondent No.2 in her Complaint on which present FIR was
registered, had made allegations of being harassed for bringing Rs.50 Lacs,
luxury car as well as for transfer of her share in the joint property, in favour
of her husband.
86. It is asserted by the Respondent No. 2 that there was tremendous pressure
of dowry, property and cash from the Petitioners. From day one, they were
making demands of expensive gifts, car, cash and home and had asked her to
arrange Rs.50 Lacs to buy an apartment in Singapore and since she was unable to
do, she started working and made down payment for the Apartment in Singapore,
which is now their matrimonial home and a joint property. The husband wants the
house which was bought by them in May, 2011 to be exclusively transferred in his
name. There are two other properties Logux Zest and Vatika of which, they are
joint owners, which also he wants her to transfer in his name and has no rights as a
spouse.
87. These allegations essentially as inter se dispute in regard to the joint
properties held by the Complainant and her husband in Singapore and in no way
are they reflective of any demand on account of dowry nor do they establish any
act of cruelty towards her.
88. The next set of allegations made by her is that within first year of marriage,
she was thrown out of the house because she had not brought any household items
or car in dowry. She claimed that they wanted a Honda Civic Car, gold and cash
for the MBA of her husband.
89. Again, firstly, it emerges is that in the earlier Complaints that were filed by
her, no such allegation was made. Secondly, this Complaint has been filed on
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 23 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
27.12.2016 while she had got married in 2002 and no such allegations were ever
before made by her. Pertinently, soon after the marriage, the husband had gone to
Singapore and she had followed him in about 10 months. It is clearly evident that
these allegations have been made as an afterthought significantly because neither
any date, time or the occasion of such demands were made has been stated.
90. The Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she had started working in
2006 after her son turned one year old and she contributed to household, down
payment for car and purchase of first investment Kentish Green in 2008. The
house was sold by the husband, but no cash or savings from that was given to her.
She further alleged that husband’s family runs a foreign exchange Dusle and as
they were in need of cash or gold, they tried to keep her salary DBS account alive
so that they could trade. These allegations again, can no way meet the standard of
harassment or cruelty as stated in Section 498A IPC.
91. She herself further states that even when they were separated, they
contributed for the International Schooling of the son.
92. She further asserted that her entire gold and stridhan have not been
returned to her which is under the custody of her in laws and husband/Petitioners.
They have also refused to return the same and the value of the goods is Rs.30
Lacs. Pertinently, not a single word has been detailed either about the dowry
articles or the gold given to her as her stridhan. She has claimed that everything is
under the control of her in laws and husband.
93. No details whatsoever has been given either of the Articles given in dowry
or her jewellery whatsoever except making a bald assertion that the total value is
Rs.30 Lacs. It is pertinent to observe that she had left India and joined her husband
in Singapore barely after 10 months of marriage, in 2003. This makes it
imperative for her to explain that how and what were the dowry articles that were
given to her or were entrusted in any manner to the Petitioners. Allegations are not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 24 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
only vague, but have been designed to somehow bring in a case under the corners
of 498A IPC.
94. She further asserted that her son of 10 years old, has been single handedly
raised by her since 2014 when she came to India. She and her belongings were
thrown out from the house. In 2016, the husband duped her by saying that he was
in India to work, but took the child away to Singapore.
95. These allegations pertaining to the custody of the child are again not within
the scope of Section 498A IPC. In case, there have been matrimonial disputes and
the issues have arisen about the custody petition, the appropriate remedy was to
file a Custody Petition, which in fact had been filed by the husband in the year
2014 along with the Divorce Petition.
96. She further asserted that her husband had assaulted her sexually from 2011
onwards with drugs and she lost her baby in 2012. Again, these are nothing but
bald assertions. No document whatsoever has been placed on record to
corroborate that she was being administered drugs or that the loss of baby was on
this account.
97. Even if all the allegations as made in the Complaint are admitted, then too
it is clearly evident that neither do they fall within the category of harassment or
cruelty, which would make it punishable under Section 498A IPC. The allegations
are vague and non-specific which have emerged for the first time in this
Complaint dated 27.12.2016 and no such allegations were made in all other
previous litigations that have been initiated by her.
98. In the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667
it was observed that it was a matter of common experience that the
Complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues without proper deliberation. It was further observed that if
filing of the Complaint and its consequences are not visualized properly,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 25 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
then such Complaints can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and
pain to the accused persons and their close relations.
99. There is no evidence under Sections 48A/406/34 IPC disclosed in the
Complaint on which ground as well, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
100. The next aspect that needs to be addressed is in regards to the
summoning of the Father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the Complaint
especially when they have been put in Column 12 in Chargesheet.
101. The impugned Order dated 28.01.2021 vide which the Petitioner No.
1 & 2 have been summoned fails to disclose any reason for the said
summoning and merely records as under:
“On perusal of the copy of chargesheet and other
documents i.e. FIR, Seizure memo, Inquiry documents, list
of dowry articles, and statement of witnesses U/s l61 Cr.P.C
etc, there appears sufficient grounds to proceed against
accused Saurav Bhatia, Rajan Bhatia and Krishna Bhatia.
Accordingly, cognizance is taken against them U/s 498A,
406 read with Section 34 IPC.”
102. The Supreme Court observed in regard to the importance of careful
passing of summoning order in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special
Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, that Summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set
into motion as a matter of course…”
103. The necessity of giving reasons while summoning was emphasized in
the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) and Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and Another (1995) 6 SCC 194, wherein it was observed:
“28. Since at the time of taking cognizance the Court has to
exercise its judicial discretion it necessarily follows that if
in a given case – as the present one – the complainant, asSignature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 26 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
the person aggrieved, raises objections to the acceptance
of a police report which recommends discharge of the
accused and seeks to satisfy the Court that a case for
taking cognizance was made out, but the Court overrules
such objections, it is just and desirable that the reasons
therefore be recorded. Necessity to give reasons which
disclose proper appreciation of the issues before the Court
needs no emphasis. Reasons introduce clarity and
minimise chances of arbitrariness. That necessarily means
that recording of reasons will not be necessary when the
Court accepts such police report without any demur from
the complainant…”
…
104. Further, in the case of G. Saraswathi vs. Rathinammal & Ors. (2018)
3 SCC 340, it has been held that giving of reasons is an essential part of the
Courts adjudicatory process and therefore, reasoning is the harbinger of the
order, it has been held that “…Time and again, this Court has emphasized
on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must
contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the !is,
the issues arising the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal
principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the
findings on all the issues in support of its conclusion…. Such order
undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to
know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost.”
105. The impugned Summoning Order fails to disclose any reasons for the
Summoning of the Petitioners. The Prosecution had placed the parents-in –
law in Column No.12 with the finding that there was no case made out
against them. In case the Ld. MM found any reason whatsoever to proceed
against them, at least it should have been reflected in the Summoning Order.
The Complainant had lived in Singapore for over 10 years before coming
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 27 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
back to Delhi and even then, she had stayed at her Parents house. The
Complaint fails to disclose any specific incidents which warrant summoning
of the Petitioner No. l & 2.
106. The Last aspect is whether the filing of this FIR and consequent
Charge-Sheet is the abuse of the process of the Court.
107. Pertinently, the Petitioner No. 3 after marriage had shifted to
Singapore in the year 2003 and had acquired permanent residency. The
Child who was born in the year 2005, was also residing with them and was
admitted in regular International School in Singapore. It is unfortunate that
their marriage came under the bad weather in 2014 resulting in the parties
separating and the Petitioner No. 3 filing a Divorce-cum-Custody Petition in
Family Court, Singapore.
108. The Respondent No.2 in her Complaint on which present FIR was
registered, had made allegations of being harassed for bringing Rs.50 Lacs,
luxury car as well as for transfer of her share in the joint property, in favour
of her husband. These allegations have arisen only after the Divorce cum
Custody Petition got filed against her in Singapore, by Petitioner No. 3. At
no point of time ever before was there any Complaint ever made to any
Authority. It is abundantly clear that these allegations have popped up only
as a counter to the Divorce proceedings.
109. The Apex Court while dealing with the components of Section
498A IPC, observed in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs.
State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLineSC 3682, that if the
allegations in the FIR are found to be vague and ambiguous and lack of
precise allegations which are alleged after the Notice of Divorce, then it
may be concluded that the FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 28 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59
intended to settle the score with the husband and his relatives. In such a
situation, the quashing of the FIR is justified.
110. The Complaint has been filed after the initiation of Divorce
proceedings, making it imperative to closely consider the Chargesheet and
the allegations made therein to ascertain if there is a genuine case or it is a
retaliatory action with no offence disclosed from the allegations.
Conclusion:
111. For all the reasons discussed above, it is held that this present case is a
classic example of misuse of the statutory provision of Section 498A IPC by
the Complainant. It is abundantly evident that present FIR is an abuse and
misuse of the process of the Court, resorted to by the Complainant to use it
as a tool for compelling the Petitioners to relent to her expectations. There
are no offences made out on the basis of the averments made in the
Complaint. Also, the Summoning Order is not reasoned and is accordingly
unsustainable.
Relief:
112. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Petitions are allowed and the
FIR stands quashed along with the Charge-Sheet and all the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
113. The Petitions are allowed, and accordingly disposed off along with
pending Application(s), if any.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 05, 2025
N
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1889/2017 & CRL.M.C. 3019/2021 Page 29 of 29
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.08.2025
18:35:59