SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this Cr. Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No.200/2017 registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.
(2.) As per the case set up in the FIR, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 complainant were married on 14.07.2010. After few days of the marriage, the petitioner returned to USA where, he was already working from before the marriage. In the petitioner's absence, his parents, sister, etc. allegedly used to harass and humiliate the complainant/respondent No.2 on account of demand of dowry and for various other reasons. On 24.12.2010, the complainant too went to USA. Initially, she was treated with love and respect but a few days later, Ranveer Singh started showing his true colours to the complainant. The complainant's freedom was totally curtailed. She was assaulted and was not allowed to talk to her parents. She conceived in the year 2011. Despite that, the accused petitioner continued to treat the complainant cruelly saying that he did not desire the child. On a particular day, she was beaten so brutally that she miscarried. A few days later, she again became pregnant on which, Ranveer Singh sent her back to India. She gave birth to a son on 07.01.2012 whereafter, she started hoping for a better treatment from her matrimonial relations. Ranveer came to India in the last week of October, 2012. The complainant's parents organised a lavish Chuchak ceremony, but the in-laws were not satisfied. She returned to America with Ranveer on 24.11.2012 where he resumed his cruel behaviour with the complainant. She was beaten frequently. She was even turned out of the house. Even their minor child was assaulted. On 10.06.2013, Ranveer assaulted the complainant inhumanly resulting into numerous injuries being caused to her. On one day, he also threw child on the floor whereafter, she called the police who rescued the complainant and her child and took them to a shelter home. An inquiry was initiated against Ranveer who was kept in custody for a significant period of time for his cruel and inhuman behaviour. He was directed to pay 1568 dollars per month as child support. However, Ranveer absconded from America in the month of November, 2014 and returned to India with the intent to avoid all liabilities which had been enforced upon him by the U.S. authorities. The complainant continued to live in USA with her child with great degree of difficulty and struggle. Her parents went to her matrimonial house for settling the dispute on which, they came to know that Ranveer was attempting to remarry. Complainant's father filed a complaint in police on which, Ranveer was restrained from remarrying. Thereafter, the complainant and her father demanded return of the stridhan articles entrusted to the accused but they refused to part with the same on which, the FIR came to be lodged. The petitioner Ranveer has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition for challenging the impugned FIR on various grounds.
(3.) Shri Vikas Bijarnia learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the decree/ order dated 13.11.2014 issued by the competent court in USA whereby, the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant M/s. Kavita was dissolved. Under this decree, the petitioner Ranveer was directed to pay 19500 dollars to Smt. Kavita in addition to certain amount as child support. Shri Bijarnia urged that considering the aspect that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the complainant stood terminated way back in the year 2014, the continuance of the impugned FIR, which came to be filed after a delay of nearly three years, amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. He urged that while passing the decree, the Court at USA settled all the properties claimed by the parties with the sole exception that Ranveer Singh would return the wedding dress belonging to Kavita which was lying with his extended family at India. He urged that in the entire proceedings of divorce which came to be initiated before the Court at California, there was no allegation regarding the petitioner having harassed and humiliated Kavita on account of demand of dowry. At para No.3 of the statistical information reproduced in the judgment, the reason for separation is mentioned as irreconcilable differences in the marriage. He further contended that from a bare reading of the proceedings of the US Court, it is evident that the parties never came into contact with each other after 10.06.2013. The present FIR came to be lodged in the year 2017 i.e. beyond the statutory limitation of three years provided under section 468 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC both of which are punishable with imprisonment of three years. He further urged that so far as the allegation regarding the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, there is no allegation in the entire FIR that any of the dowry articles of Smt. Kavita had ever been entrusted to the present petitioner. He submitted that as per the admitted allegations in the FIR, the petitioner left India for USA before the complainant. Therefore, as per him, there was no chance that the dowry articles of the complainant could be in the petitioner's custody. He urged that even if the finding given by the Court at USA that the dowry and personal articles of Smt. Kavita would have to be returned by the petitioner is accepted to be true, then too, the said direction can give rise to a civil liability only. For the offence under Section 406 IPC, an allegation of entrustment and subsequent refusal to return the entrusted goods has to exist failing which, accusation of the said offence cannot be sustained. He therefore urged that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in its entirety.;