Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Criminal Procedure Code') was jointly filed by petitioners Smt. Monica and Smt. Vinay Malhotra, on 18.08.2007 seeking quashment of the First Information Report No.170/2007 registered with Police Station Moti Dungari, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 417, 466, 420, 468, 471 r/w 120 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). When the matter was listed before the court on 28.07.2011, an objection was raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/respondents that since the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and that court has already taken cognizance of the matter on 22.12.2010, this petition should be dismissed as having become infructuous. Contention of petitioners, however, was that the order taking cognizance was passed by learned trial court despite their objection that complete set of documents enclosed with the charge-sheet, have not been supplied to her. Time prayed for was granted to petitioners to take appropriate steps with regard to cognizance order dated 22.12.2010 and trial court was directed to look into the application filed by the petitioner for supply of aforesaid documents. While it appears that relevant documents were subsequently supplied to the petitioners, petitioners challenged aforesaid order of this court dated 28.07.2011, before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5811/2011, which was decided vide order dated 16.08.2011 observing that the order of this court, merely adjourned the matter, therefore, the petitioners should raise their grievance before this court in the present petition. This court however was requested to dispose of the present petition as early as possible but positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is in the backdrop of these facts that the present matter has been assigned to this Bench for hearing and disposal.
(2.) When the matter was listed before this court on 26.08.2011, learned counsel appearing for complainant/respondents, raised the same objection about maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel sought to rely on certain Supreme Court judgments. This court, while taking note of the fact that petitioners are arguing the matter in person and not assisted by any counsel and that this petition has remained pending for last four years, granted permission to petitioner no.2, on her oral prayer, to file amended petition so as to challenge the order of cognizance dated 22.12.2010. The petitioners therefore filed amended petition on 01.09.2011 placing on record copy of order dated 22.12.2010 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.876/2010, and prayed for quashment of the order of cognizance. The matter was heard on 02.09.2011 at length. With a view to explore possibility of out of court settlement, the matter was deferred to 06.09.2011. However, when parties could not agree on any amicable settlement, arguments on merits were heard on 06.09.2011.
(3.) Before however considering rival arguments, it is considered appropriate to notice brief facts giving rise to this petition. Marriage of petitioner no.1 Smt. Monica was solemnized with Vikas Sharma on 16.01.2004 at Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Lajpat Nagar-3, New Delhi. According to petitioner Monica, her husband Vikas Sharma deserted her five months after the marriage. He is a Non Resident Indian based in DR Congo. The petitioner Monica was driven out of home by her parents-in-law. They did not return her 'stridhan'. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance against her husband. She also filed a criminal complaint against her husband Vikas Sharma, father-in-law Bhaskar Lal Sharma and mother-in-law Vimla Sharma for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC 09.09.2004. Cognizance against husband Vikas Sharma, father-in-law and mother-in-law for offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC was taken by the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, (for short, 'the ACMM') on 21.03.2005. She then filed another criminal complaint against her husband and parents-in-laws for offence under Sections 415/417 of the IPC for fraudulently inducing her to marry Vikas Sharma by concealing facts contained in his divorce decree regarding his first marriage and having two children from first wedlock. It is informed that criminal proceedings against Monica's father-in-law for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and against her mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC were quashed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.07.2009. However, in another complaint filed by the petitioner Monica against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for offence under Section 415/417 IPC, cognizance was taken by the learned ACMM at Delhi on 20.03.2006. Learned ACMM, New Delhi, by his order dated 10.05.2006 granted monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to petitioner Monica in her petition. Dissatisfied with the quantum, she approached the High Court of Delhi by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.452/2005. Delhi High Court by its order dated 22.11.2006 enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs. 50,000/- per month as interim measure. However, it is informed that Monica's husband Vikas Sharma approached the Supreme Court against said order. The Supreme Court, by interim order, reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month requiring Vikas Sharma to participate in the proceedings before learned ACMM. It however appears that Vikas Sharma did not make payment of interim maintenance and continues to be in default even till date. His Special Leave to Petition was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court. He and his mother Smt. Vimla Sharma were declared proclaimed offender in the trial pending against them before the court of ACMM for offence under Section 498-A IPC against all the three and under Section 406 IPC against husband and mother-in-law, and another trial against all of them for offence under Section 415/417 IPC.;