Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Nagaland And Anr on 18 January, 2023
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010020412022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./82/2022
AISHWARYA JAIN AND 6 ORS
W/O SH. JINENDER KUMAR JAIN
D/O SH. SANJAY JAIN,
R/O D-23, GROUND FLOOR, GULMOHAR PARK, NEW DELHI-110049, MOB.
NO. 919650480706
2: SH. SANJAY JAIN
S/O LATE SH. SURESH CHAND JAIN
R/O D-23
GROUND FLOOR
GULMOHAR PARK
NEW DELHI-110049
MOB. NO. 919811042561
3: SH. ANIMESH JAIN
S/O SH. SANJAY JAIN
R/O D-23
GROUND FLOOR
GULMOHAR PARK
NEW DELHI-110049
MOBILE NO. 919811757888
4: SMT. AAKRITI JAIN CHHABRA
W/O SH. SHANKER CHHABRA
R/O F-124
1ST FLOOR
ASHOK VIHAR
PHASE-1
DELHI-110052
MOB. NO. 919871359259
5: SH. SHANKER CHHABRA
Page No.# 2/21
S/O SH. P.K. CHHABRA
R/O F-124
1ST FLOOR
ASHOK VIHAR
PHASE-1
DELHI-110052
MOB. NO. 919868155555
6: SH. MUKESH JAIN
S/O LATE SH. H. C JAIN
R/O T-15
2ND FLOOR
GREEN PARK EXENSION
NEW DLEHI-110017
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
JITPL
VIL. DERANG
DIST. ANGUL
ODISHA-759117
MOB. NO. 919810023334
7: SH. PRAVEEN JAIN
S/O LATE SH. H. C. JAIN
R/O L-10 SOUTH EXTENSION PART-II
NEW DELHI-110049
MOB. NO. 91981001900
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND.
2:SH. JINENDER KUMAR JAIN
S/O SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN
R/O F-35
SECOND FLOOR
GREEN PARK MAIN
NEW DELHI-110016.
ALSO RESIDES AT-
JINDER TOWER
OLD DAILY MARKET
NEAR SHANI MANDIR DIMAPUR
Page No.# 3/21
NAGALAND-797112
MOB. NO. 919402211111
9999498811
LANDLINE NO. 03862-22418
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR DEBOJIT SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, NAGALAND
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
Date : 18-01-2023
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted
by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.N.
Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Chandan, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as Ms. M. Kechi, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland/respondent
no.1.
2. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the respondent no. 2 and
petitioner no. 2 to petitioner no. 7 are the relatives of petitioner no. 1. The
petitioners have filed an application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking
quashment of the FIR dated 12/10/2021 registered as Sub Urban police
station case no. 79/2021 u/s 420/384/389/506/34 IPC at Dimapur,
Nagaland.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 became
acquainted with the respondent no. 2 sometime in the year 2012 in a
common coaching class. Subsequently they became friends and started
Page No.# 4/21
meeting more often. In January 2019, the respondent no. 2 confessed his
feelings for the petitioner no. 1 which she out rightly denied at that time.
Thereafter, despite the reluctance from the petitioner no.1, the respondent
no. 2 constantly pursued the petitioner no. 1 for about 4/ 5 months until
she agreed to his proposal in May, 2019.
4. The families of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 first
met on 26.01.2020 at Delhi. They assured the parents of the petitioner
no. 1 that they would treat her as their own daughter. Subsequently, in
the month of February, 2020 the parents of petitioner no. 1 along with
petitioner no. 1 and her brother, petitioner no. 3 visited Dimapur,
Nagaland, the native place of respondent no. 2 at his request. They
stayed there for two nights only. Having believed everything that was
displayed before them by the respondent no. 2, the parents of the
petitioner no. 1 had agreed to solemnize the marriage between the
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and accordingly their marriage was
held on 27/11/2020. After marriage the petitioner no. 1 resided at her
matrimonial home at Delhi with the parents of respondent no. 2, sister-in-
law and their husbands. On the very first day of her marriage, all of her
jewellery (including Stridhan) valuable articles, important documents (such
as passport etc) given to her at the time of marriage were taken away by
her in laws. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 along with respondent no. 2
also visited the parental home of the respondent no. 2 at Dimapur,
Nagaland and stayed there for couple of months after marriage.
5. It is alleged by the petitioners in the petition that immediately after
the solemnization of marriage, the petitioner no. 1 was subjected to
torture, cruelty, harassment and humiliation both physically and mentally
Page No.# 5/21
at the hands of respondent no. 2 and his family members for not bringing
substantial wealth to the family of her in-laws. The petitioner no. 1 after
enduring verbal and physical abuse for about 6 months, was constrained
to leave the house of respondent no. 2 on 16.05.2021 within a short span
of six months and took shelter at her parental home at New Delhi.
Subsequently, the petitioner no. 1 had lodged an FIR against the
respondent no. 2 and his family members on 10.09.2021 alleging physical
and mental torture hurled towards her by the respondent no. 2 and his
family members before the ACP Crime Against Women Cell, South District,
New Delhi. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered vide South
Delhi GK PS Case no. 321/2021 u/s 120 B/406/420/354/498A/509 IPC and
section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. Later on, to settle the matter amicably some meetings were held
between the parties, with the consent of both the parties and their family
members so as to return the jewelleries, articles and stridhan properties of
petitioner no. 1. The meetings were held by the family members of both
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 but the settlement could not be
materialized but subsequently the jewellery, articles and stridhan
properties were returned to the petitioner no.1.
7. On 10.12.2021, the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 received notice
issued u/s 41 A of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the investigating officer Sub Urban
police station, Dimapur, Nagaland directing their appearance before him
on or before 27.12.2021. They were shocked to know that an FIR has
been registered against them. The said notice was not accompanied by
the copy of the FIR, however, it could be gathered from the contents of
the notice that the FIR was registered for the offence of cheating,
Page No.# 6/21
extortion and criminal intimidation. On 20/12/2021, the petitioners
obtained the certified copy of the impugned FIR from the office of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, Nagaland. On going through its
contents, the petitioners found that all the accusations made against them
were false, baseless and concocted.
8. Being aggrieved by the lodging of false FIR, the petitioners have
moved before this Court for quashing the FIR no. 79/2021 dated
12/10/2021.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. Saikia appearing for the petitioners
has argued before this Court that the impugned FIR is maliciously and
subsequently instituted by the respondent no.2 as a counter blast to the
police complaint filed by the petitioner no. 1 dated 10/09/2021 and
subsequently registered as FIR no. 321/2021. At the instance of the police
complaint of the petitioner no. 1, the respondent no. 2 was required to
appear before the Crime Against Women Cell, South District, New Delhi on
20/09/2021 and 27/09/2021. He deliberately avoided the appearance and
instead filed the police complaint before the Sub Urban Police station,
Dimapur, Nagaland.
10. It is also the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners that the impugned FIR has been admittedly filed by the
respondent no. 2 simply to get preemptive protection against any hostile
action at the behest of the petitioners if any and nothing more, without
there being any actual offence having been committed. The only
allegation leveled against the present petitioners is that the respondent
no. 2 received some phone calls from some unknown no's requesting him
to amicably settle the dispute with the petitioner no. 1 and the said mere
Page No.# 7/21
statements cannot be the basis for registering the police case against the
present petitioners at Nagaland and thus the said police case as well as
the FIR is liable to be quashed.
11. Mr. D. Saikia has also contended that the ingredients and gravamen
of the alleged offences u/s 420/384/389/506 IPC are prima facie not being
made out in the compliant. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR reveals
that there is no cognizable offence made out against the present
petitioners. The entire dispute is a matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner no. 1/wife and the husband respondent no. 2. Majority of the
allegations are against the petitioner no. 1 alone and the averments are in
the nature of personal grievances between husband and wife. As much as
those allegations are false and not supported by any evidence, they do
not attract any criminality.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that this
is a fit case for the quashing of the impugned FIR and falls within the
parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
13. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the peitioners has
also placed reliance on the following case laws -
a. (2013) 14 SCC 374 (Chandralekha and others vs. State of
Rajasthan and others).
b. (2007) 12 SCC 369 (Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi and others).
c. (2012) 10 SCC 741 (Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of UP and another).
d. (2014) 12 SCC 362 (Amarendu jyoti and others vs. State of
Chattisgarh and others).
e. (2021) 3 SCC 751 (Archana Rana vs. State of UP and another).
Page No.# 8/21
f. (2015) 7 SCC 423 (Manik Taneja and another vs. State of
Karnataka and another).
14. Per contra learned Senior counsel Mr. P.N. Choudhury representing
the respondent no.2 has argued that the respondent no. 2 is a permanent
resident of Dimapur, Nagaland. He went to Delhi in the year 2012 for
pursuing high school and under graduate studies where he met petitioner
no. 1 who was his classmate. He entered into relationship with her in
2018. Subsequently, they decided to get into matrimonial relationship by
way of marriage and accordingly the petitioner no. 1 and her family
members came to Dimapur to meet the family members of respondent no.
2 and subsequently their marriage was held in Delhi.
15. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 left the matrimonial
home on her own accord and volition on 16.05.2021 after a mere five
months of their marriage. In July, 2021, both the families met in New
Delhi to try to resolve the issues between the petitioner no. 1 and the
respondent no. 2 but was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1
lodged the complaint against the respondent no.2 and his family members
with an allegation of torture and harassment and demand of dowry.
Subsequently, some other cases were also filed against the respondent no.
2 claiming maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Domestic Violence Act etc.
16. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted
that in the month of September, 2021 the respondent no. 2 received an
unknown phone call claiming to be police officer from Women Cell, Delhi
requiring his presence for an enquiry related to the complaint lodged by
the petitioner no. 1. But the said official was unable to provide any
summons/warrant or any case number to the respondent no. 2 to respond
Page No.# 9/21
officially.
17. It is also alleged by the learned Senior counsel Mr. P.N. Choudhury
that subsequently several phone calls were received by the respondent no.
2 from the family members of petitioner no. 1 with threats and demanding
of Rs. 3 crores to settle the issues between the parties. Consequently
finding no other alternatives the respondent no. 2 was compelled to lodge
the FIR against the present petitioners.
18. Learned Senior counsel by referring the case law of Chandralekha
and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC
374 by stating that the investigation was proceeding by the investigating
team having taken permission from the jurisdictional magistrate to
proceed to New Delhi for questioning in furtherance of the ongoing
investigation against the petitioners so as to complete investigation and to
submit final form as the case may be. But this court ought not to interfere
at the ongoing investigation which is yet to ascertain whether the
cognizable offences are made out or not because if such investigation is
having been prematurely stopped by the impugned stay order it would
frustrate the cause of justice. Learned Senior counsel relied on the
judgment of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of enforcement (Criminal
Appeal No. 1340/2019).
Learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also cited some
other case laws in support of his submissions -
a. Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal no. 1277 of
2014).
b. Ramachandra Bharati @ Satish Sharma VK and other vs.
State of Telangana [2022 Live law (SC) 986].
Page No.# 10/21
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
considering the materials on record and the complaint filed by the
respondent no. 2, it is pertinent to consider the scope and power of the
High Court to quash an FIR in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482
of Cr.P.C. It is at this stage appropriate to refer section 482 of the code
which reads as follows -
"Section 482 - saving of inherent powers of High Court -
Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary
to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or to otherwise secure the end of justice."
20. A bare look at this provision would show that while exercising such
inherent powers, the High Court must be satisfied that either-
i. An order passed under the code would be rendered
ineffective or
ii. The process of any court would be abused or
iii. The ends of justice would not be secured.
21. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha
(1982) 1 SCC 56, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if
the FIR did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the
information as laid or received. In the said judgment, it has laid down the
legal propositions as follows-
".........the legal position is well settled. The legal position appears to
be that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere
Page No.# 11/21
with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into
the offence alleged to be completed, if however the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
permitted..... Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the
offence must necessarily be followed in the interest of justice. If,
however, no offence is disclosed an investigation cannot be
permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being
disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party whose
liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty
and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the
court jealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is
carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for
establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an
offence is disclosed a proper investigation in the interest of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence
and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper
investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed the offender
may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender
may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the
society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an
offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the
same. If the court interferes with the proper investigation in a case
where an offence has been disclosed the offence will go unpunished
to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause
of justice suffers. It is on this principle that the court normally does
not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has
Page No.# 12/21
been disclosed. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. If on a consideration of the relevant materials the court is
satisfied that and offence is disclosed, the court will normally not
interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally
allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting
materials for proving the offence."
22. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and another (1985 ) 2 SCC 370,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows -
"It is well settled by a long course of decisions of this court that for
the purpose of exercising its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR
or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the
basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents
accompanying the same per se. It has no. jurisdiction to examine
the correctness or otherwise of the allegations."
23. In Madhav Rao Jiwagi Rao Scindia and others vs. Sambhaji Rao
Chandroji Angre and others reported in (1988)1 SCC 692, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and laid down that when
a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the taste to be
applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence.
24. Again in the case of State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali khan and others
reported in (1988) 4 SCC 655, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down
that the jurisdiction u/s 482 of the code has to be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection and has observed that in exercising the jurisdiction,
the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry either the allegation in
Page No.# 13/21
the compliant are likely to be established by the evidence or not.
25. From the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is
clear that the court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for
quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR when the allegations made in
the same do not disclose the commission of an offence and that it
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. I also
feel it just and proper to refer to a leading decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal (supra) in which Hon'ble
Supreme Court has pointed certain category of cases by way of
illustrations wherein the inherent power u/s 482 of the code can be
exercised either to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. They are as follows-
i. Where the allegations made in the FIR or the compliant,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
ii. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156 (1) except under
an order of a magistrate within the purview of s. 155 (2) of the
code.
iii. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
iv. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
Page No.# 14/21
cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the code.
v. Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
vi. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuation of the
proceeding and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
vii. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
26. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind and considering the
decisions as referred herein above, let us now apply them in the facts of
the present case.
27. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner no. 1 had entered into a
wedlock with the respondent no. 2 on 27/11/2020. The petitioner no. 2 is
the father of the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner nos. 3 to 7 are the
relatives of petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 left her matrimonial home
on 16/05/2021. In the FIR the petitioner no. 1 had alleged that during her
Page No.# 15/21
stay in her matrimonial home she was subjected to harassment and
cruelty by her husband/respondent 2 and his family members as they
were dissatisfied with the articles the petitioner no. 1 had brought as
Stridhan.
28. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner no. 1 had lodged an FIR
on 10/09/2021 and subsequently, the respondent no.2 had lodged the FIR
on 12/10/2021 with an allegation that after the marriage when the
petitioner no. 1 came to Dimapur at her matrimonial home initially for few
days she was normal and soon she got vexed with the place as she could
not accommodate herself with the lifestyle of the town.
29. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 1 started demanding
money for her day to day expenditure in lakhs in a week, for which the
respondent no. 2 used to borrow money from his father and other
relatives. It is further alleged that subsequently respondent no. 2 came to
know that the petitioner no. 1 was addicted to smoking and drinking. She
used to tell that life in Dimapur is boring and insisted him to go to Delhi.
When the respondent no. 2 refused to agree with her proposal, then the
petitioner no. 1 and her family members demanded 3 lakhs a week for her
expenditure and when he did not agree with her demands, the petitioner
no. 1 started assaulting him both mentally and physically and used to give
threats to file dowry and other criminal cases against him and his family
members.
30. The respondent no. 2 also alleged in the FIR that when he visited
Delhi and stayed there for couple of days in the month of February, all
these days the petitioner no.1 and her family members was only on one
mission to pressurize him to settle in Delhi and demand his share from his
Page No.# 16/21
parents' property with the help of her brother-in-law and sisters who are
lawyers in Delhi as they would help to settle the partition of the property
with his parents and sisters. It is also alleged that when their plan was not
successful the petitioners started to demand more money i.e. Rs. 3 crores
from the parents of the respondent no. 2.
31. Lastly, the respondent no. 2 has alleged in the FIR that the
petitioners on the pretext of false dowry cases in the Women Cell offered
to settle the matrimonial dispute upon an handsome amount of money
which amounts to extortion. It is also stated in the FIR that the
respondent no. 2 and his family members went in depression as they
could not meet the extortion amount of Rs. 1 crore demanded by the
petitioners and they were also under serious threat of life as they were
getting calls from unknown numbers to settle the issue with the petitioner
no. 1 or to face the consequences.
32. It is seen that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondent
no. 2, a case was registered by the Dimapur police u/s 384/420/389/506
IPC. The main allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that she did not
like the place of her matrimonial home which is a boring town and she
insisted the respondent no. 2 to shift from Dimapur to Delhi. She
demanded money for her day to day expenditure in a lac of rupees in a
week. According to respondent no. 2 as he did not agree with the
proposal to join in the family business with the father of petitioner no. 1
and refused to shift from Dimapur to Delhi, the petitioner no. 1 left his
house according to her own will. I do not find any of the allegations made
in the FIR registered u/s 389/384/420/506 IPC covers the ingredients of
the alleged offence against the present petitioners.
Page No.# 17/21
33. The second part of the allegations made in the FIR is that the
petitioner no. 1 and her family members used to demand one to three
crores of Rupees from the respondent no. 2 and his family members with
the pretext to resolve the dispute between the respondent no. 2 and
petitioner no. 1. There is no specific allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to
7 from whom he received phone calls for the payment of money.
34. Having gone through the contentions of the complaint in question
which is duly produced on report as annexure 1, no specific allegations
can be said to have averred by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner
nos. 2 to 7. The law is well settled that the general and vague allegations
would not be sustainable against the petitioners herein.
35. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the following position of law
-
In the case of Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 which reads as follows -
"In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all an end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. The allegations are made against Rajesh only but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the Page No.# 18/21 prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
36. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 which is reproduced as follows-
"We are of the opinion that the present case falls under the first, third and fifth category set out in the para 102 of the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In such a situation the High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the appellants filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.
It is necessary here to remember the words of this court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswami and others (1977) 2 SCC 699 which reads as follows -
"In the exercise of this wholesome power the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusions that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers in both civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case the veiled object behind the lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure Page No.# 19/21 of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice".
37. In the case of Natubhai Sumabhai Rohit and others vs. State of Gujarat reported in Criminal Mis. Application no. 20679 of 2013 which reads thus -
"Besides to the generality and the vagueness of the allegations, if the ingredients necessary to make out the offence u/s 498A IPC are looked into as observed by the Supreme Court in Bhashkar Lal Sharma vs. Monika (2009) 10 SCC 604, the allegations of harassment should be such nature and extent so as to coerce the wife to meet any unlawful demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand of dowry or any other unlawful conduct on part of the accused of a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Closely examining the allegations in the instant FIR, these elements as well as the degree of seriousness in the allegations could be said to be in wanting."
38. In the case of G.V. Rao vs. L.H. V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 the Supreme Court held that a complaint relating to matrimonial dispute where all the members are roped into irrespective of role, becomes liable to be quashed. The court observed as under -
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully but little skirmishes suddenly erupt which assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the Page No.# 20/21 family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on there being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parities may ponder over their default and terminate their dispute amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their young days in chasing their cases in different courts."
39. In view of the aforesaid ratio as referred above and facts of the present case, the allegations leveled against the present petitioners can be said to be vague and devoid of merit. The dispute is mainly between the husband and wife. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. Looking to the complaint in question the allegations leveled against the present petitioners in the impugned FIR registered with Sub Urban Police Station, case no. 79/2021 in Dimapur, Nagaland, while being vague which records no specific role attributed to the present petitioners herein.
40. In view of the aforesaid findings as stated above, the petition is allowed. The FIR being Sub Urban police station case No. 79/2021 u/s 420/384/389/506/34 IPC is hereby quashed. This is only with regard to the present proceedings and if any other proceedings which are pending between the parties, the same would continue in accordance with law.
Page No.# 21/21
41. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage. There is no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant