- (1.) The petitioners, Manohar Prasad Bhatnagar, has approached this Court for quashing of F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No.209/2012, registered at Woman Police Station, Jaipur [West], Jaipur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that Dimpal Kachhawa, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, had lodged a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate [Junior Division], No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur against her husband, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bhatnagar, against her father-in-law, Mr. Manohar Prasad Bhatnagar, the present petitioner, and other members of their family. The said criminal complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Woman Police Station, Jaipur West, Jaipur. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal F.I.R., as aforementioned was chalked out for offences, mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Harsh Vardhan Nandwana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court :- firstly, the petitioner happens to be the father-in-law, and happens to be an old man of 74 years. Secondly, the complainant has merely levelled general allegations against all the accused-persons, and no specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. Thirdly, the F.I.R. has been lodged with an ulterior motive to succeed in her attempt to get divorced from her husband. Fourthly, the allegations of cruelties being inflicted upon her relate to the incident, which had taken place at Hyderabad, and yet the criminal complaint had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate in Jaipur. Thus, neither the Woman Police Station would have the territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter, nor the Court, would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 2 WLC(SC)Cri 597, Manish Ratan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2007 1 WLC(SC)Cri 132, and Mahaveer Mehta & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,2013 1 CrLR 506. Lastly, relying on the cases of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2010 7 SCC 667, and on Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2012 10 SCC 741, the learned counsel has contended that even the Apex Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is being abused by woman to falsely implicate the members of the in-laws' family. Therefore, the Apex Court is of the opinion that it is the duty of the Bar and the Bench to carefully scrutinize the allegations made against the offenders by a complainant-wife, who is bent upon to wreak personal vengeance upon her in-laws.;