Swarana Kanta Sharma JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
CRL. M.A. 15261/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P. CRL. 1762/2022 & CRL. M.A. 15262/2022
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 378/2022 (Impugned FIR) registered under Sections 376/377/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at P.S. Begumpur, on merits.
4. The Impugned FIR was registered on a complaint made by respondent no. 2 wherein it is alleged that petitioner no. 1 (husband of respondent no. 2) was addicted to drugs and on a specific day, petitioner no. 1 came with his friends and asked respondent no. 2 to make physical relations with his friends. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 left the house, around 3 years ago and visited home sometimes. It is also alleged in the FIR that in the absence of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 4 forcefully established physical relations and even had unnatural sexual intercourse with her. When respondent no. 2 resisted petitioner no. 4, she was badly beaten and threatened. It is also stated that when respondent no. 2 informed her mother-in-law about the aforementioned incidents, the mother-in-law, along with her brother-in-law, also threatened respondent no. 2 with dire consequences. Thus, the FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant alleging offence of rape under Section 376 IPC, unnatural sexual intercourse under Section 377 IPC and hurt under Section 323 IPC against the accused persons where specific allegations were made against each accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has not been filed in the above-noted FIR. It is submitted that the present case pertains to a matrimonial dispute with regard to the amount of maintenance to be paid by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2 and the same has been given the colour of a criminal offence to exert pressure on the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the father-in-law and husband of the respondent no. 2 are not tenable since petitioner no. 1 has been residing separately for the last 8 years and has not been in a marital relationship with respondent no. 2 for the last 15 years. It is also submitted that the sister of respondent no. 2 has been harassing petitioner no. 1.
6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation of wrongful confinement is untrue as the CCTV footage is contradictory to the allegations levelled by respondent no. 2 in the FIR and that in the said dispute, except petitioner no. 1, all other petitioners are on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of the court that the notice for joining investigation was served at the wrong address i.e., at the residence of the complainant and not at the address where petitioner no. 1 was residing. In order to buttress the claims, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following judgments:
a) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [MANU/SC/0115/1992 : (1992) SUPP (1) SCC 335]
b) Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [MANU/SC/1090/1998 : (1998) 5 SCC 749]
c........