Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Though, criminial Misc.32426 - M of 1998 was filed by 7 petitioners namely, (1) Kulbhushan Chopra alias Kulbhushan Jain, (2) Veena Jain,(3) Vikas, (4) Ragni (5) Kiran Jain and (7) Manav Chopra alias Manav Chopra alias Manav Jain for quashing the F.I.R. No.146 dated 24.10.1998 under Sections 342, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 I.P.L as also the F.I.R. No.147 dated 26.10.1998 under Sections 406/498-A ,IPC, both lodged at police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, when the matter came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 1.12.1998, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners confine this petition for quashing only F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.10.1998 under Sections 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. and that this petition for quashing the F.I.R. No. 146 dated 24.10.1998 referred to above is not pressed. Accordingly, on that date itself, this petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 146 dated 24.10.1998 aforesaid, was dismissed as not pressed. 2. Even with regard to the other F.I.R., the petition, so far as petitioners 1, 2 and 7 namely, Kulbhushan Chopra alias Kulbhushan Jain, Veena Jain and Manav Chopra alias Manav Jain are concerned, was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to raise the pleas before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, notice of this petition was issued in respect of petitioners 3 to 6 namely Vikas, Ragni, Kiran Jain, and Kirna Jain only. 3. Therefore, Criminal Misc. 32426-M of 1998 is now confined to petitioner 3 to 6 and that too, with regard to the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.12.1998. 4. Criminal Misc. No. 1596-M of 1999 has been filed by Ashwani Kumar for quashing the very same F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.10.1998 under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. lodged at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. Therefore, these two petitions arising from the same F.I.R. are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The allegations in F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.10.1998 registered on the statement of 3rd respondent - Bharti Jain alias Ekta Jain (daughter of Rishu Kumar Jain and wife of Manav Chopra alias Manav Jain) are as follows : 6. The complainant - Bharti Jain was married to Manav Chopra on 9.5.1997. Her parents have given various dowry items including Maruti Car, gold, colour- T.V., washing machine, A.C. furniture etc. The complainant - Bharti Jain was married to Manav Chopra on 9.5.1997. Her parents have given various dowry items including Maruti Car, gold, colour- T.V., washing machine, A.C. furniture etc. apart from Rs. 65,000/ - in cash. After some time, the accused raised frequent demands for cash from the parents of the complainant, Rs. 10,000/- at some time and Rs. 20,000/ - at another time. They asked the complainant to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents, and when this was not met, her in-laws sold the Maruti Car given to her in dowry. After the birth of a daughter to the complainant, they demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. Her in-laws turned her out of the house after beating her. Her father-in-law informed, through telephone to leave her in their house. On 24.10.1998, the complainant, her mother, her maternal aunt and some representatives of the women of the Mahila Institution went to her in-laws house. As soon they entered the house, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, Kiran Jain, Kirna Jain and Ashwani Kumar along with 5/6 other persons, who were armed with sticks and rifles, attacked them. The complainant and others were injured, and her mother was beaten with iron rods and sticks. The gold ornaments worn by them and cash in their purses were taken away. The complainant was attacked with hockey sticks. 7. As pointed out already, petitioners 3 to 6 in Criminal Misc. 32426-M of 1998 and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. 1596-M of 1999 seek quashing of the above said F.I.R. According to them, Vikas is a student of M.B.B.S. in U.S.S.R. and continuing his course ever since 1995 by residing in a hostel there, while Ragni is a student of LL.B. in the Law College in Bangalore, who is also residing in a hostel at Bangalore. The petitioners also contend that Kiran Jain and his wife-Kirna Jain are not at all related to the other petitioners and they are only family friends of Kulbhushan Chopra and others. They also claim that they are residing separately from the other petitioners. 8. Ashwani Kumar (petitioner in Cr. M. 1596-M/991) contends that he who has been adopted by Kulbhushan Chopra has been brought up along with Manav Jain and is helping in the house of Chopra. 9. These petitioners contend that no case is made out against them under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. 10. Reply to Cr. 8. Ashwani Kumar (petitioner in Cr. M. 1596-M/991) contends that he who has been adopted by Kulbhushan Chopra has been brought up along with Manav Jain and is helping in the house of Chopra. 9. These petitioners contend that no case is made out against them under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. 10. Reply to Cr. M. 32426-M/98 has been filed on behalf of respondents I and 2, namely State of Punjab and S.S.P., Jalandhar, wherein it has been admitted that Kiran Jain and Kirna Jain are the friends of petitioners 1 to 4. It has also been admitted that petitioners 3 and 4 in Criminal Misc. 32426-M of 1998 namely, Vikas and Ragni are residing in U.S.S.R. and Bangalore respectively though, it is alleged that they can also make the demand for dowry as per the statement of Bharti Jain. 11. The 3rd respondent-Bharti Jain has also filed a reply mainly repudiating the case of these petitioners and stating that these petitioners - Vikas, Ragni, Kiran Jain and Kirna Jain were also present at the relevant time and have committed the offence. 12. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the State and the S.S.P. Jalandhar to Criminal Misc. 1596-M/99 stating that though Ashwani Kumar is not related to Kulbhushan Chopra, he is residing with him. It has also been stated that the charge sheet has been filed and Ashwani Kumar has been arrayed as an accused. 13. The third respondent-Bharti Jain has filed a reply to this petition also stating that petitioner-Ashwani Kumar has been adopted by her father-in- law. and that he is living as a member of the family as the adopted son of Kulbhushan Chopra. She has also reiterated her plea in the F.I.R. that Ashwani Kumar also attacked her and others. The other allegations have been suitably dealt with by her in her reply. 14. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions contends that so far as Kiran Jain and Kirna Jain are concerned, admittedly, they are not related to the husband of the complainant-Bharti Jain. Therefore, he contends that they cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A, I.P.C. inasmuch as the husband and his relations only are liable to be punished under Section 498-A I.P.C., and not others. 16. Therefore, he contends that they cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A, I.P.C. inasmuch as the husband and his relations only are liable to be punished under Section 498-A I.P.C., and not others. 16. Similarly, he contends that Ashwani Kumar has been adopted by Kulbhushan Chopra, and, therefore, he is also not liable to be proceeded against under Section 498-A, I.P.C. 17. The State has admitted in its reply that Ashwani Kumar is not related to the husband of the complainant, though he resides with their family. The complainant also does not say that Ashwani Kumar is otherwise related to the husband of the complainant, except saying that Ashwani Kumar has been adopted by the father of her husband. It is not stated that Ashwani Kumar has been adopted by both Kulbhushan Chopra and his wife. It is also not stated that there was a valid adoption, especially when Kulbhushan Chopra has two sons - Manav Chopra and Vikas. Therefore, there is nothing to show that Ashwani Kumar is a validly adopted son of Kulbhushan Chopra and his wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Ashwani Kumar, therefore, contends that he cannot also be proceeded against and punished under Section 498-A, I.P.C. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that there is no specific allegation of entrustment of any dowry article to Vikas, Ragni Kiran Jain, Kirna Jain and Ashwani Kumar, or that they had misappropriated any of the specific dowry articles. He also contends that all the allegations in the complaint of Bharti Jain (Complainant) are vague and without details. He also contends that Vikas and Ragni, being the residents of U.S.S.R. and Bangalore respectively. Ashwani Kumar being the adopted son, and Kiran Jain and Kirn Jain being only a friends of the family, and there being no specific allegation against them regarding entrustment or misappropriation of dowry articles, no case is made out against all of them under Section 405 I.P.C. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Manav Jain had left for Soviet Russia on 27.6.1998, and the complainant feeling deserted, left the family taking with her the dowry articles, and had even given a receipt for having received all the dowry articles. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Manav Jain had left for Soviet Russia on 27.6.1998, and the complainant feeling deserted, left the family taking with her the dowry articles, and had even given a receipt for having received all the dowry articles. According to the petitioners, Manav Jain, the husband of the complainant, returned from U.S.S.R. in August, 1998, that there was a settlement between them and that the complainant and her husband started living in a different house. According to the petitioners, due to the interference from the parental home of the complainant, the complainant left the matrimonial home in October, 1998, with all the dowry articles. According to the petitioners, on 24.10.1998, the complainant and about 20/25 ladies of the Mahila Institution barged into the house of petitioners 1 to 4 and manhandled them, and though information was given to the police, instead of lodging the F.I.R. against the complainant and others, the police lodged the F.I.R. No. 146 dated 24.10.1998 against the petitioners. The petitioners also claim that apprehending false implication, Manav Jain had even lodged complaint. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the present F.I.R. lodged is only a mala fide action on the part of the 3rd respondent. 20. But the learned counsel for the State and the complainant contend that the chargesheet has been filed in this case and, therefore, this Court will not go into the question whether the allegations in the F.I.R. make out a case under Sections 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. and then undertake the exercise of quashing the proceedings. They rely upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1260) : [1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 722 (SC)], wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that after the filing of the chargesheet, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. This decision clearly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant to some extent, because, this Court, in view of the fact that the chargesheet has been filed, will not, on a reading of the F.I.R., go into the question whether the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners or not. This decision clearly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant to some extent, because, this Court, in view of the fact that the chargesheet has been filed, will not, on a reading of the F.I.R., go into the question whether the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners or not. It may be, that Kiran Jain, Kirna Jain and Ashwani Kumar are not related to the husband of the complainant. It may also be, that Vikas and Ragni were at U.S.S.R. and Bangalore respectively, at the relevant time. It may also be that there are no specific allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of dowry articles against these persons, but, yet inasmuch as the chargesheet has been filed, this Court will not now undertake the exercise of quashing the F.I.R. with reference to this offence under Section 406 I.P.C. 21. But, so far as the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is concerned, the objection taken by the petitioners- Kiran Jain, Kirna Jain and Ashwani Kumar goes to the root of the matter itself. In order that a person can be proceeded against the punished under Section 498-A, I.P.C., that person has to be a relation of the husband of the lady. This is a legal requirement. If this legal requirement is not fulfilled, then it becomes a formidable compulsion or legal exigency which enables this Court to quash the F.I.R. insofar as it relates to the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. inspite of the fact that the chargesheet has been filed. 22. The Honble Supreme Courtin Meenakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kuar (1994(3) R.C.R. 123) : [1994(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 662 (SC)], held that after the filing of the chargesheet and the framing of the charges by the Court, proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. except in rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. 23. Therefore, the F.I.R. in so far it relates to the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. with reference to Kiran Jain, Kirna Jain and Ashwani Kumar, has to be quashed. But, so far as Vikas and Ragni are concerned, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed with reference to either Section 406 or Section 498A, I.P.C. inasmuch as there is no such formidable compulsion or forensic exigency in their case enabling this Court to quash the F.I.R. CRIMINAL MISC. But, so far as Vikas and Ragni are concerned, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed with reference to either Section 406 or Section 498A, I.P.C. inasmuch as there is no such formidable compulsion or forensic exigency in their case enabling this Court to quash the F.I.R. CRIMINAL MISC. 32426-M/98 24 The petition is allowed in part F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.10.1998 of Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar is quashed in so far as it relates to Section 498-A, I.P.C. only and that too, with reference to Kiran Jain, and Kirna Jain only. In other respects, the petition is dismissed. CRIMINAL MISC NO. 1596-M OF 1999 25 The petition is allowed in part. F.I.R. No. 147 dated 26.10.1998 of Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar concerned in this petition is quashed in so far as it relates to the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. only. In other respects, the petition is dismissed.