I '"i" or.or.2o1o \ present:- Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik for the petitioners. Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the state. + Crl. fvl.A. No. 74O1/2O1O in Crl. M.C. No. 1913/2O1O * Exemption from filing of certified copies of Annexures as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions' The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 4061498-A134 IPC got registered against them by the complainant/wife vide FIR No. 7l4l2OO5 at Police Station SultanPuri, Delhi. Mr. R.N. Vats, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice of this petition on behalf of the State. Arguments on this petition have been heard. The petitioners are members of in-laws family of the complainant, -The husband anc! mother-in-law of the complainant have not been arrayed as petitioners in the present petition' Petitioner No. 1 Radhey Shyam is Jeth; petitioner No. 2 Kiran is Jethani; petitioners No. 3 & 4, namely, Sheela & Sunita are Nanads; petitioner No, 5 Uganti is the sister of mother-in-law; petitioners No. 6 & 7 namely Radha & Mamta are paternal aunts of the husband of the complainant. Crl, M.C, No.7973/2O7O I r' a. page 7 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified a The complainant was married witfr one Rajender Kumar on 1,2 30.03.2004. lt is stated that there were serious matrimonial q disputes between them. The complainant allegedly left her matrimonial home within a month of her marriage on 30.04 '2004 and made a complaint against the petitioners including her husband, mother-in-law & father-in-law in CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi on the basis of which FIR No, 7L4l2oo5 under sections 4061498-A/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution before the trial court in which the name of the petitioners including the husband, father-in-law & mother-in-law of the complainant were mentioned in Column-4 of the charge-sheet which is meant for the details of the accused persons. The court below vide its impugned order dated 03.10.2008 has taken cognizance under Sections 4061498-A134 IPC against all the accused persons whose names find mention in Column-4 of the charge-sheet. Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the father-in-law of the complainant at the time of alleged offence was employed in Dubai and had hardly visited Delhi during the period of one month for which the complainant had stayed in her matrimonial home. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further Crl. M.C. No, 7973/2O7O page 2 of 4 o argued that even as per the charge-sheet, no incriminating materia$ was found by the lnvestigating Ofticer against any of the petitioners and in support of his said contention, he has relied upon the case put up by the Investigating Officer before the court in the charge- sheet. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet is extracted below: "lt was also revealed during the enquiry conducted by . lnspector Suraj Prakash that the complainant was tortured physical and mentally by her mother-in-law and husband and the complainant herself had given in writing on 15.04.2005 that legal action may be taken against her husband and mother-in-law because they had committed physical and mental cruelty upon her and articles are also with them and she did not named any person of her in- laws side except her husband and mother-in-law in her last statement dated 15.04.2005. lt was also emerged from the investigation that the father-in-law of the complainant namely Mool Chand is doing the job of Carpenter at Dubai and he hardly visits Delhi once in a year for few days. Sufficient evidence have been brought on record against the accused persons from the investigation conducted so far and the mother-in-law and husband of the complainant are kept in column No. 4 who both are on police bail and other accused whose name the complainant has mentioned in her complaint were not arrested since no evidence liable to be arrested came on record against them but since the complainant has mentioned their names in her complaint and hence, their names have been mentioned in column No, 4 while preparing the challan for identification and Hon'ble Court may summon them in the court, if deems fit," t.j' a Crl. M.C. No.7973/207O page 3 of 4 -;a (/ A perusal of the charge-sheet particularly the portion I extracted hereinabove would show that even as per the prosecution, there was no incriminating evidence against the petitioners for taking cognizance against them for offence under Sections 4061498- A/34 lPC. On the basis of the said charge-sheet cognizance could have been taken by the court below only against the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant and against no other relation. Mr. R.N. Vats, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has very fairly conceded that there is no incriminating material against the petitioners for taking cognizance against them. In the facts & circumstances of the case stated above, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 7I4I2OO5 under Sections 4061498-A134 lPC, Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi is hereby quashed qua the petitioners and father-in-law of the complainant. The impugned summoning order dated 03.10,2008 is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in question stated to be pending in the Court of Ms. Shunali Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi are ordered to be dropped. I %V4w.-4 \J JUNE Ot, 2O1O .BsR' Crl. M,C, No. 7973/2O1.O S.N.AGGARWAL, J page 4 of 4 il*