Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PRAYER in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 111 under Sections 498 -A, 406, 506 IPC dated 27.03.2010, Police Station Palwal City, District Faridabad (Annexure P -1) qua the petitioner along with other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is brother -in -law of respondent No. 2 -Smt. Shabana -complainant. He got admission in M.B.B.S. Course in the year 2004 at Pt. B.D.Sharma, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'PGIMS, Rohtak') and completed his M.B.B.S. Course in November, 2008. Thereafter, compulsory one year internship followed and he completed the same on 31.12.2009. From August, 2004 to 01.01.2010, the petitioner was a resident of boys hostel at PGIMS, Rohtak. During this training, the petitioner was getting scholarship on the basis of his merit for the year 2007 -2008 and 2008 -2009. The petitioner, at present, is working at Delhi as a doctor in a hospital, which is attached with the Railways. The marriage between the elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Moinuddin Khan and complainant -Smt. Shabana took place on 06.05.2006. At that time, the petitioner was pursuing his studies of M.B.B.S. As per the FIR, the only allegation against the petitioner is that after the marriage, the husband, father -in -law, mother -in -law and the petitioner did not like the dowry articles, because of which, after beating her, the complainant was thrown out of the house and since then, she is residing with her parents. It needs to be noticed herein, at this stage itself, that there is no date mentioned as to when this act had taken place nor is there any explanation given by her for the interregnum period till the registration of the FIR on 27.03.2010. As per the FIR, on 21.03.2010, when her family members had gone to Village Dudhola to meet their relatives, she and her Bhabhi, Firdosh were alone at home along with the daughter of the complainant, namely, Saphiya, who is 2 1/2 years old. At about 7 P.M., electricity went off and at that time, one car stopped outside the house, out of which, her husband Moinuddin, father -in -law Yameen along with two other persons forcibly entered the house of her parents and tried to take custody of Saphia, which was objected to by the complainant. On this, her husband Moinuddin said that he had purchased the police and had made all arrangements and no one can harm him and everything, as per his wishes, will be done. When they tried to take away the daughter forcibly, her Bhabhi Firdosh tried to stop them but husband of the complainant slapped the complainant on her face and pushed her back and she fell on the floor. She and her Bhabhi raised alarm, upon which all the accused left the place and ran away threatening them that they were saved on that day but they will soon kill them. On hearing the noise, her brother Mohd. Shahid, who was in the adjoining house, came out but by then, they had fled away.
(3.) A perusal of the FIR does not indicate any involvement of the petitioner in the incident dated 21.03.2010. What is alleged in the FIR is only that the petitioner along with his brother, father and mother did not like the dowry articles because of which, she was given beatings and thrown out of the house. There is no specific allegation made against the petitioner as to whether he had ever beaten her and when and where, this is a general assertion made against all fours of them, namely, the petitioner, brother, father and mother of the petitioner. The date of the said incident had not been mentioned and nor has there any explanation come between the period she was thrown out of the house and the date till the FIR was lodged. This clearly indicates that the name of the petitioner has been included merely to rope him also in the case, which is a general tendency now -a -days and has been deprecated by the Supreme Court and various observations made in this regard. The Legislature never intended the provisions of Section 498 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be used in the way it is being fragrantly resorted to not only harass the innocent but to take revenge. As is apparent from the pleadings and the record, the petitioner was not residing with his parents at the time when the marriage took place. He was undergoing training of his M.B.B.S. Course from the year 2004 to December, 2009. All this goes to show that the present FIR against the petitioner is a blatant misuse of process of law, which the Court cannot, in the given facts and circumstances, be a silent spectator too. Further, no offence is disclosed to have been committed by the petitioner from the FIR as it stands, therefore, the said FIR cannot be permitted to stand qua the petitioner when there are no allegations, which can be attributed to the petitioner and can be said to have been committed by him.;