JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this misc. petition, the petitioner Lal Singh has approached this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the FIR No.20/2014 registered at the Police Station Bali for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 313 IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner's son Shri Govind Singh was married to the respondent No.2 complainant Smt.Saroj Kanwar on 24.2.2011. It appears that the relations between the husband and wife became strained upon which, Govind Singh filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2 Saroj Kanwar in the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur on 15.4.2013. Notice of the divorce petition was served upon the respondent No.2 complainant and she filed a reply thereto on 18.9.2013. 3. While the proceedings of the divorce petition were still underway, the respondent No.2, lodged the FIR under challenge at the Police Station Bali on 13.2.2014 with the allegations that her parents had given substantial dowry in her marriage. For a few days after the marriage, the behaviour of her matrimonial relatives was cordial but when her brother came to fetch her after a month of the marriage, her mother in law, while seeing her off, commented that the dowry given in marriage was inadequate. The complainant was allegedly instructed by the mother in law to bring a necklace weighing 5 tolas for her and a car for the husband from her father's place while coming back. The complainant informed of this demand to her parents but since the amount could not be arranged for, the demand was not fulfilled. About a month later, her husband and her sister in law came to her father's house for taking her back. The above demand was repeated in presence of her parents. Her parents requested for some time to meet the demand upon which they went back without taking her along with them and clearly declared that she would not be taken back to the matrimonial home till the demand was met. A few days later, she was taken to the matrimonial home by her father and her cousin brother Mahendra Singh, where her husband, father in law, mother in law and sister in law taunted them saying that they were beggars. Her father pleaded with the accused and requesting them to take care of the complainant, left her at the matrimonial home and went away. Her father pleaded with the accused and requesting them to take care of the complainant, left her at the matrimonial home and went away. The accused however, started torturing her. Small and trivial issues were blown up out of proportions and her husband, mother in law and sister in law used to beat her up frequently. They threatened her that the ill-behaviour would be continued till the demand of necklace and car was met. She somehow or the other tolerated the ill-behaviour meted out to her. Her husband and her father in law used to have liquour sitting together. On the second Sunday of September, both of them consumed liquour and then hurled abuses to her parental relations. She started crying whereupon her mother in law and sister in law came out. She was assaulted by her husband, mother in law and sister in law by kicks and fists. On the next day, she called her brother Krishnapal Singh, who came there. The accused misbehaved with him also. However, he assured the accused that the demand of car would be met after the loan taken on the occasion of the marriage was repaid. She further alleged that her husband used to behave with her cruelly in the night. He only used her body for satisfying his carnal desires. Thereafter, she was abused saying that she was ugly and belonged to a poor family. He also used to threaten her saying that he would leave her and marry again. She was tortured for failing to meet the demand of dowry and was threatened with divorce. She came back to her father's house in December 2011 and consulted a doctor upon which, she was reported to be pregnant and was advised treatment. Being elated with the news of conception, she went back to the matrimonial home under the hope that hearing the good news of her having conceived, the accused would become happy and stop misbehaving with her. However, her matrimonial relatives, on hearing the news of her pregnancy, became apprehensive. She was pressurised to abort the child. Her husband threatened her that in case she did not abort the child, she would be divorced. All the other accused also used to tease and taunt her saying that her husband was to be remarried and therefore, the child was undesirable. She was pressurised to abort the child. Her husband threatened her that in case she did not abort the child, she would be divorced. All the other accused also used to tease and taunt her saying that her husband was to be remarried and therefore, the child was undesirable. Her sister in law used to bring tablets for abortion and her husband used to pressurise her to consume the same but she avoided and concealed the drugs. On a particular day, her husband saw the hidden tablets on which she was severely assaulted by the husband and the sister in law. In February 2012, the accused started holding clandestine meetings. Her mother in law and sister in law started feigning good behaviour with the complainant and after taking her into confidence, she was taken to the doctor under the pretext of having her checked up. She was taken to a private clinic at about 9 O'clock by her husband, mother in law, father in law and sister in law. There, she was administered some injection after which, she became unconscious. When she regained senses, she found herself at the matrimonial home. She was feeling very faint at that time. A few days later, her husband asked her to return back to her father's house as she was ill. She was dropped back to her father's home by her husband on 20.2.2012. On the next day, she was taken to a doctor at Bali for testing. The doctor checked her and informed that she had suffered a miscarriage a few days back. Hearing this, she was deeply shocked and fainted. When her in laws were confronted with this information, they became apprehensive and started pleading forgiveness. However, as the complainant and the accused hail from Rajput families, where the second marriage of a girl is not possible, there was no option with the complainant but to continue tolerating the cruel conduct of the accused so that her marriage could somehow or other be saved. However, the husband and in-laws made no efforts for taking her back to the matrimonial home for many months thereafter. Her husband finally came to her father's house in October 2012 and on his demand, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to him and the complainant was sent back to the matrimonial home. However, the husband and in-laws made no efforts for taking her back to the matrimonial home for many months thereafter. Her husband finally came to her father's house in October 2012 and on his demand, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was given to him and the complainant was sent back to the matrimonial home. In December 2012, her husband and in laws pressurised her to sign a divorce deed but she refused on which, she was beaten up and was forcibly turned out of the matrimonial home. She returned to her father's house and got herself treated. In January 2013, her husband, mother in law and sister in law came to her father's house and again pressurised her to sign a divorce deed. She refused on which, all three started assaulting her in presence of her family members. Her brother Mahendra Singh and others intervened and saved her. She was taken to the doctor and was got treated for her injuries. She continued to put up with the misconduct of the accused but her husband and her other matrimonial relatives did not relent from their ill and indifferent behaviour and never took any steps for reviving the matrimonial ties. She further alleged that even after she had been turned out of the matrimonial home, her parents were continuously pressurised to fulfil the demand of dowry under the threat that she would be divorced. It was further alleged that when she was sent to her father's house on the first occasion after marriage, her gold and silver ornaments were retained by her mother in law, father in law and sister in law with the assurance that the ornaments would be kept secure and would be returned back whenever required. However, despite her demand, her ornaments were not returned. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.20/2014 was registered at the Police Station Bali for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 313 IPC and investigation commenced. 4. The petitioner Lal Singh being the father in law of the complainant respondent No.2 has approached this Court seeking quashing of the above FIR and the entire proceedings sought to be taken pursuant thereto. 4. The petitioner Lal Singh being the father in law of the complainant respondent No.2 has approached this Court seeking quashing of the above FIR and the entire proceedings sought to be taken pursuant thereto. Certified copies of the divorce petition submitted by Govind Singh the husband of the respondent No.2 in the court of the learned Family Court, Udaipur and the reply filed thereto by the respondent No.2 complainant have been filed on the record of the misc. petition. 5. Shri Mahesh Bora, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Nishant Bora, representing the petitioner, vehemently contended that the allegations levelled by the complainant in her FIR are patently false and fabricated. It was contended that the petitioner is employed in the Devsthan Department of the Government of Rajasthan and was posted outside the District Pali for almost the entire period during which the complainant stayed in the matrimonial home. They contended that much before the lodging of the FIR, Govind Singh the complainant's husband filed a divorce petition in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur with the specific pleading that his wife (the complainant herein) failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations and frequently quarrelled and misbehaved with the in-laws. The mother in law was threatened and abused. It was further mentioned in the divorce petition that for the last one year, the respondent No.2 was without justification residing at her father's house having left the matrimonial home with her all ornaments etc. Learned counsel drew the Court's attention to the reply filed by the respondent No.2 to the aforesaid divorce petition on 18.9.2013, wherein there is no allegation whatsoever against any of the matrimonial relatives regarding any maltreatment given to the complainant on account of dowry demand or otherwise. Learned counsel contended that in the reply filed by the respondent No.2 Smt.Saroj Kanwar, the allegation of demand of dowry and maltreatment is specifically limited to the husband. There is no averment in the reply that the accused got the complainant aborted. Relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3100 , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 , Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti reported in (2009)10 SCC 184 , Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3100 , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 , Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti reported in (2009)10 SCC 184 , Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2012(10) ADJ 464 and Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2009)14 SCC 466 , the learned senior counsel contended that ex-facie, further proceedings of the FIR against the petitioner father in law amount to a gross abuse of the process of criminal law and as such, the same deserves to be quashed qua the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Arora, learned counsel representing the respondent complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that there is a specific allegation by the complainant in the FIR that the petitioner too equally participated with the remaining accused in the harassment meted out to her on account of demand of dowry. They urged that there is a specific allegation of the complainant that she was forcibly aborted with the active participation of the present petitioner and thus, as per them, it is not a case warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers for quashing the FIR at the inception. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 8. The complainant's husband Shri Govind Singh (son of the petitioner) filed a divorce petition against her in the court of the learned Judge, Family Court much before the registration of the FIR under challenge. The respondent No.2 complainant was served the notices of the divorce petition and also filed a reply thereto well before launching the prosecution under challenge. Thus, these proceedings are very relevant and have a material bearing on the controversy at hand. 9. I have perused the pleadings of the divorce petition and the reply filed thereto. 10. As per the admitted allegations of the complainant in the detailed FIR, she was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial house in December 2012. She received the notices of the divorce petition and filed a reply thereto in September 2013. 9. I have perused the pleadings of the divorce petition and the reply filed thereto. 10. As per the admitted allegations of the complainant in the detailed FIR, she was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial house in December 2012. She received the notices of the divorce petition and filed a reply thereto in September 2013. However, in the reply there is a pertinent absence of allegations against the matrimonial relatives other than the husband regarding them having harassed or maltreated the complainant on account of demand of dowry or even otherwise. The allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, humiliation and cruelty are limited against the husband alone. There is not a whisper of allegation in the entire reply that the complainant was forcibly got aborted at her matrimonial home. Even in the entire FIR, so far as the petitioner is concerned, absolutely vague and general allegations have been levelled against him by the complainant. The allegations regarding demand of dowry, beating etc. are specifically attributed to the husband, the mother in law and the sister in law. Thus, keeping in view the principles enshrined in the above-referred judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that ex-facie, continuance of the proceedings of the impugned FIR against the petitioner is not at all justified as the same clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 11. As a consequence of the above discussion, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.20/2014 registered at the Police Station Bali and the further investigation thereof is hereby quashed qua the present petitioner.Stay petition is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******