FIR lodged with intention of taking revenge against Wife’s maintenance petition is liable to be quashed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed a petition setting aside the order passed by the Allahabad High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of proceeding by the bench comprising of N.V Ramana and N.M Shantanagoudan. The appeal was filled by the accused person (Anupriya pal and 4 others) against the judgment and the final order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Allahabad High Court in the application of the accused person seeking quashing of the proceeding and summons dated 3.07.2012 passed by the ACJM Ghaziabad in complaint case no.6714 of 2011

The wife (Appellant) of the Sandeep Pal (Respondent no.2) was in MCA final year and the respondent 2 had completed his MBBS when they were married (though the information given by the appellant that she has qualified M.C.A at the time of marriage was wrongly given). The wife took the admission in an institute to pursue MBA in the state of Madhya Pradesh, but after some time of the marriage, the appellant went back to her parental home due to demand of dowry being placed to her.

On February 2 the Sandeep Pal (Respondent no. 2) was working as an ad-hoc medical officer in the state of Madhya Pradesh, he stayed with the appellant at her parent home and then moved to Uttar Pradesh to continue as a permanent medical officer.

After the birth of the first child the appellant moved in with the respondent no.2 but due to harassment from the side of respondent no. 2 and his family members returned back to her parent’s home. It was stated by the appellant that there was dowry demand by the respondent and compelled the appellant to file a complaint before the family reconciliation centre, the police station at Behul in Madhya Pradesh under section 498A IPC and Protection of women’s from domestic violence act, 2005.

On 03.07.2012 a complaint was lodged by the respondent 2under section 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Court in complaint no.6714 of 2011. The ACJM, Ghaziabad issued a summon for the trial of the accused. The appellants filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The Supreme Court stated that who had been served noticed remained absent. Thus, an amicus curiae was appointed to argue and assist the court, having learnt from amicus curiae and the appellant lawyer and the state lawyer, we are of the opinion that the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 is a counter blast to a number of proceeding lodged by the appellant, though the information was given by the appellant about her being in M.C.A final year at the time of marriage, it cannot be said that appellant had cheated on the respondent no. 2.