2025:HHC:23404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 580 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 .

Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 Surjeet Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, No.1/State Additional Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R No. 5 of 2023 dated 09.02.2023, registered at Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

_________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2025:HHC:23404

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police .

asserting that she was married to Krishan Gopal on 19.07.2022.

She stayed in her matrimonial home at Lamlehra for some time after her marriage. She, her husband and her parents-in-law (present petitioners) shifted to Mohali after some time.

Informant's husband started taunting her at the behest of the petitioners, saying that she was provided nothing by her parents at the time of her marriage. Her mother-in-law taunted her by saying that she had given ₹2,50,000/- to her daughter in marriage for the purchase of a car, but the informant's parents had not given her anything. She was asked to bring money from her parents. Petitioners used to say that she came empty-

handed. Her father-in-law used to say that the informant was not as per his status, and she looked like a toy. They restrained her from going out of the house. When she went to her parental home for tying Rakhi, her husband left for Australia on 04.09.2022. The informant started residing with the petitioners.

They harassed the informant and stopped paying expenses for her needs. They also abused the informant's mother and her brother. They tried to kill the informant and snatch her mobile ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:23404 phone. She started shivering due to fear. Her mother-in-law requested her not to reveal the incident to any person to save .

the family's honour. She was taken to her parental home on 12.11.2022. She tried to contact the petitioners but failed to do so. She went to Lamlehra, and the house was found locked. She called her father-in-law, who stated that he did not know her.

He revealed that he was residing in Mumbai. She tried to contact her husband, who picked up the calls after several attempts and said that he would not talk to her and would divorce her via a video call. Informant's parents tried to contact the petitioners and ask them to keep the informant with them; however, they refused. They stated that they were issued a Visa and they were leaving India. The informant, her family members, and Pardhan Gram Panchayat Takoli went to the petitioners' house on 31.01.2022; however, the petitioners refused to open the door. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the F.I.R., conducted the investigation, and filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R. and the filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have filed the ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:23404 present petition for quashing of the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings. It was asserted that the petitioners are residing in .

their house alone. They are unable to do any work due to their old age and were dragged into this litigation unnecessarily. The petitioners, their son and informant, resided together at Lamlehra for 15 days and thereafter shifted to Mohali. The petitioners' son went to Australia, where he was working before his marriage.

The informant knew about the fact that her husband was serving in Australia, and he would leave India. His ticket was booked by the informant. The informant and her husband used to talk to each other on the telephone. She was kept nicely in her matrimonial home. She herself left for her parental home. She did not return to the petitioners' house. The petitioners published an advertisement in two leading newspapers stating that they had disinherited their son and informant. They filed an application under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007. The notice was issued to the informant, but she did not file any response. She filed a false complaint against her husband and the petitioners. No allegations of demand for dowry were made in the application. The matter was found to be ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:23404 one of domestic violence and was sent to CDPO, Bangana, District Una, H.P., for taking action as per law. The petitioners .

went abroad on 08.02.2023 as their son-in-law was suffering from a serious ailment in his ear and required surgery. The informant made a false complaint against the petitioners and their son. Her statement was recorded, and she has materially improved upon her version. The contents of the F.I.R. do not disclose the commission of any offence. No specific allegations were made in the F.I.R. No complaint was made till 12.11.2022.

The petitioners' version was not verified by the police. The evidence on record is inconsistent with the allegations in the F.I.R. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R., as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

2025:HHC:23404

5. Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not .

constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioners made a false complaint. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R., as well as consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., be quashed.

6. to Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court and this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. The police conducted the investigation and found sufficient material for filing the charge sheet. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words:

2025:HHC:23404 (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 FIR 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 a private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)

8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1), it has been mentioned that 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 prima facie constitute ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:23404 any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a .

non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.

Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed."

9. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:

The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:23404 provisions of law which are necessary for the proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves .

inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent the promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of the court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

2025:HHC:23404

11. It was held in State of Karnataka v. L. .

Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699: 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 that the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed at page 703:

12. The term abuse of the process was explained in Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy , (2013) 6 SCC 740:

established and recognised doctrine both by the English courts and courts in India. There are some established .

principles of law which bar the trial when there appears to be an abuse of the process of the court.

34. Lord Morris in Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964 AC 1254 : (1964) 2 WLR 1145 : (1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL)], observed: (AC pp. 1301-02) "There can be no doubt that a court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. ... A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process.

*** The power (which is inherent in a court's jurisdiction) to prevent abuses of its process and to control its procedure must in a criminal court include a power to safeguard an accused person from oppression or prejudice."

In his separate pronouncement, Lord Delvin in the same case observed that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.

35. In Hui Chi-ming v. R. [(1992) 1 AC 34 : (1991) 3 WLR 495 : (1991) 3 All ER 897 (PC)], the Privy Council defined the word "abuse of process" as something so unfair and wrong with the prosecution that the court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is, in all other respects, a perfectly supportable case.

36. In the leading case of R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett [(1994) 1 AC 42 : (1993) 3 WLR 90 :

37. In R. v. Derby Crown Court, ex p Brooks [(1984) 80 Cr App R 164 (DC)], Lord Chief Justice Ormrod stated:

38. Neill, L.J. in R. v. Beckford (Anthony ) [(1996) 1 Cr App R 94: 1995 RTR 251 (CA)], observed that:

What is unfair and wrong will be for the court to determine on the individual facts of each case.

13. It was held in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. , (2023) 15 SCC 488: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 that where the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, the Court owes a duty to quash them.

However, the Court cannot appreciate the material while ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:23404 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was observed at page 498:

abuse of the process of the court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out, even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR 1960 SC 866], this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance, e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether, on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would not be ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:23404 sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The judicial process, no doubt, should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in .

exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing the process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death." (emphasis supplied)

14. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face criminal allegations without any specific instance of criminal misconduct amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed:

16. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes, the parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain out of a molehill, and every matrimonial conduct r amounting to nuisance does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: -

17. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Chadha v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 that the provisions of Section 498A of IPC are being invoked without mentioning any specific date, time or incident, which casts ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:23404 serious suspicion on the complainant's version. It was observed:-

wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant- wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation. The observations made by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735 appropriately encapsulate this essence as under:

14. The term "cruelty" is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter .

without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecution, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of the Complainant. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking the criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality; hence, any further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law.

18. This position was reiterated in Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State, NCT of Delhi , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, wherein it was observed:-

however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure, beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:23404 been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he, being a friend of the Appellant, instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and .

contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home(2018) 14 SCC 452, fits perfectly into the present scenario:

11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of "cruelty" under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 960 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 671. The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dated. 06.12.1999, six days later, on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family, and the ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 23 2025:HHC:23404 investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Janshruti v. Union .

of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 909 that there are hundreds of genuine cases as contrasted to a false case registered under Section 498A, and the Courts should be conscious of the ground reality while adjudicating the cases under Section 498-A of IPC.

It was observed:-

20. Thus, the Court has to strike a fine balance and it has .

to see that the allegations made against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC are not general, vague or omnibus to rope in the relatives of the husband. At the same time, the Court should not scuttle a genuine case filed under Section 498A of the IPC.

21. r to A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the informant had made specific allegations against the petitioners. It was asserted against her mother-in-law that she told the informant that ₹2-5 Lakhs were provided in her daughter's dowry, and the informant had not brought anything with her. The allegations against the father-in-law were that he used to tell the informant's husband that she was not upto her status, and she looked like a toy. She further asserted that the petitioners did not provide any maintenance to her. The petitioners abused her mother and brother, and an attempt was made to kill her and snatch her mobile phone. She was left in her parental home, and she was not allowed to visit her matrimonial home. When she went to her matrimonial home with her relatives and Pardhan, ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 25 2025:HHC:23404 the petitioners did not open the door. These allegations clearly show the continuous harassment, mental and physical cruelty .

inflicted upon the informant.

22. It was submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. are false. It is impermissible to look into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.

It was observed:-

23. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand , (2025) 1 SCC 392:

can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)

6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. ...

7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'."

24. It was held in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi ), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly and not routinely.

It was observed: -

2025:HHC:23404

25. This position was reiterated in Vinod Bihari Lal v.

State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216, wherein it was observed:

26. Therefore, it is impermissible for this Court to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in it.

27. A heavy reliance was placed upon the documents annexed to the petition to submit that these documents show that the informant had improved upon her version, and her version cannot be relied upon. All these documents are photocopies, and their authenticity has not been established. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent State that it is impermissible to rely upon the documents not forming part of the charge-sheet, especially when the authenticity of these documents is yet to be seen. It was laid down by the Hon'ble ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS 29 2025:HHC:23404 Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi , (1983) 1 SCC 1:

28. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram , 1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. It was observed:

2025:HHC:23404

29. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view in Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. .

G. K. Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:

2025:HHC:23404

30. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka , (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it .

was observed at page 142:

31. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana , (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, wherein it was held:

32. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya , (2024) 2 SCC 86: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 512: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein it was observed:

33. Therefore, it is not permissible to look into the documents to determine that the informant/victim improved upon her version and her testimony cannot be relied upon. This is the matter for trial where the victim would be cross-

examined and her credibility would be weighed against the other evidence.

2025:HHC:23404

34. It is undisputed that the police have filed the charge-

sheet before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the learned Trial .

Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:

35. No other point was urged.

36. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.

2025:HHC:23404

37. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the miscellaneous applications, if any.

38. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

( Rakesh Kainthla ) 21 July 2025 st Judge (ravinder) ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2025 21:25:54 :::CIS