Sultan v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing No. 47/2019, registered at Police Station Pul Prahladpur, South East, Delhi and chargesheet No.1 dated 18.06.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and proceedings arising out of it qua him.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage of respondent No.3 was solemnized by her parents on 06.12.2015 with Faiz Alam (main accused), in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. It is alleged that after two to three months of marriage, the conduct of the respondent’s in-laws turned hostile and cruel. Her husband, under the constant instigation of his father Abdul Rehman, mother Fatma, and brother Iliyas, subjected the complainant to physical assault on multiple occasions, citing dissatisfaction with the dowry. It is specifically alleged that they demanded ₹2 lakhs in cash from her father, stating that the amount was required for her husband to purchase a car and establish his business. As her father was financially incapable of fulfilling the demand, the harassment escalated further. The complainant was subjected to verbal abuse, denied food, and confined to a room. Upon visiting her maternal home, she disclosed the instances of cruelty and dowry harassment to her uncle Khurshid Ahmed, who assured her that he would speak to her in-laws. Based on this assurance, she returned to her matrimonial home; however, the harassment persisted, and she was once again physically assaulted and mentally tortured. In January 2017, due to repeated threats from her husband, she was compelled to return to her parental home. Pursuant to her complaint, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and the other accused persons.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question. She also states that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the husband and is not a middleman in the marriage. It is submitted that since a female child was born out of the wedlock and the husband of the complainant was not ready to accept the child, the petitioner, being the uncle of the parties, had only tried to solve the matter at the behest of his sister and no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner in the FIR.

4. The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 draw this Court’s attention to the complaint filed in this case and specific allegations.

5. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Since by way of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR, it shall be apposite to note that in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that except in exceptional circumstances, where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Courts must not interfere at the stage of the investigation of an offence. Further, the principles which were laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, to be followed while adjudicating a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, are as under:

may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. 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.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a 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 Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made 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.

6. 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 continuance of the proceedings 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.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.”