JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Cr. Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR No. 200/2017 registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. 2. As per the case set up in the FIR, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 complainant were married on 14.07.2010. After few days of the marriage, the petitioner returned to USA where, he was already working from before the marriage. In the petitioner’s absence, his parents, sister, etc. allegedly used to harass and humiliate the complainant/ respondent No. 2 on account of demand of dowry and for various other reasons. On 24.12.2010, the complainant too went to USA. Initially, she was treated with love and respect but a few days later, Ranveer Singh started showing his true colours to the complainant. The complainant’s freedom was totally curtailed. She was assaulted and was not allowed to talk to her parents. She conceived in the year 2011. Despite that, the accused petitioner continued to treat the complainant cruelly saying that he did not desire the child. On a particular day, she was beaten so brutally that she miscarried. A few days later, she again became pregnant on which, Ranveer Singh sent her back to India. She gave birth to a son on 07.01.2012 whereafter, she started hoping for a better treatment from her matrimonial relations. Ranveer came to India in the last week of October, 2012. The complainant’s parents organised a lavish Chuchak ceremony, but the in-laws were not satisfied. She returned to America with Ranveer on 24.11.2012 where he resumed his cruel behaviour with the complainant. She was beaten frequently. She was even turned out of the house. Even their minor child was assaulted. On 10.06.2013, Ranveer assaulted the complainant inhumanly resulting into numerous injuries being caused to her. On one day, he also threw child on the floor whereafter, she called the police who rescued the complainant and her child and took them to a shelter home. An inquiry was initiated against Ranveer who was kept in custody for a significant period of time for his cruel and inhuman behaviour. He was directed to pay 1568 dollars per month as child support. An inquiry was initiated against Ranveer who was kept in custody for a significant period of time for his cruel and inhuman behaviour. He was directed to pay 1568 dollars per month as child support. However, Ranveer absconded from America in the month of November, 2014 and returned to India with the intent to avoid all liabilities which had been enforced upon him by the U.S. authorities. The complainant continued to live in USA with her child with great degree of difficulty and struggle. Her parents went to her matrimonial house for settling the dispute on which, they came to know that Ranveer was attempting to remarry. Complainant’s father filed a complaint in police on which, Ranveer was restrained from remarrying. Thereafter, the complainant and her father demanded return of the stridhan articles entrusted to the accused but they refused to part with the same on which, the FIR came to be lodged. The petitioner Ranveer has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition for challenging the impugned FIR on various grounds. 3. Shri Vikas Bijarnia learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the decree/order dated 13.11.2014 issued by the competent court in USA whereby, the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant M/s. Kavita was dissolved. Under this decree, the petitioner Ranveer was directed to pay 19500 dollars to Smt. Kavita in addition to certain amount as child support. Shri Bijarnia urged that considering the aspect that the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the complainant stood terminated way back in the year 2014, the continuance of the impugned FIR, which came to be filed after a delay of nearly three years, amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. He urged that while passing the decree, the Court at USA settled all the properties claimed by the parties with the sole exception that Ranveer Singh would return the wedding dress belonging to Kavita which was lying with his extended family at India. He urged that in the entire proceedings of divorce which came to be initiated before the Court at California, there was no allegation regarding the petitioner having harassed and humiliated Kavita on account of demand of dowry. At para No.3 of the statistical information reproduced in the judgment, the reason for separation is mentioned as irreconcilable differences in the marriage. He urged that in the entire proceedings of divorce which came to be initiated before the Court at California, there was no allegation regarding the petitioner having harassed and humiliated Kavita on account of demand of dowry. At para No.3 of the statistical information reproduced in the judgment, the reason for separation is mentioned as irreconcilable differences in the marriage. He further contended that from a bare reading of the proceedings of the US Court, it is evident that the parties never came into contact with each other after 10.06.2013. The present FIR came to be lodged in the year 2017 i.e. beyond the statutory limitation of three years provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC both of which are punishable with imprisonment of three years. He further urged that so far as the allegation regarding the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, there is no allegation in the entire FIR that any of the dowry articles of Smt. Kavita had ever been entrusted to the present petitioner. He submitted that as per the admitted allegations in the FIR, the petitioner left India for USA before the complainant. Therefore, as per him, there was no chance that the dowry articles of the complainant could be in the petitioner’s custody. He urged that even if the finding given by the Court at USA that the dowry and personal articles of Smt. Kavita would have to be returned by the petitioner is accepted to be true, then too, the said direction can give rise to a civil liability only. For the offence under Section 406 IPC, an allegation of entrustment and subsequent refusal to return the entrusted goods has to exist failing which, accusation of the said offence cannot be sustained. He therefore urged that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in its entirety. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Siddiqui learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They contended that the petitioner harassed and humiliated the complainant in India as well as at USA in order to satisfy his greed. When the complainant did not concede to his illegal demands, she was beaten black and blue. On one occasion, the accused assaulted the complaint so brutally that she miscarried. They contended that the petitioner harassed and humiliated the complainant in India as well as at USA in order to satisfy his greed. When the complainant did not concede to his illegal demands, she was beaten black and blue. On one occasion, the accused assaulted the complaint so brutally that she miscarried. The petitioner’s acts were so inhumane that he even did not spare the child and threw him down on the floor. There is a specific direction in the USA Court’s Judgment that the petitioner would have to return the dowry articles of Smt. Kavita which were lying with his extended family in India. The petitioner intentionally absconded from USA to avoid these directions and has till date, failed to return these articles and hence, they implored the Court not to interfere in the impugned FIR at this nascent stage and to reject the petition in its entirety. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Looking to the pleadings of the divorce proceedings undertaken interse between the petitioner and the complainant which have been annexed to the misc. petition, it is evident that Smt. Kavita signed and agreed to these proceedings in presence of her Attorney on 04.08.2014. The judgment clearly records that marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and was beyond repair. The parties had permanently separated on 10.06.2013. Considering the language of the stipulated judgment passed by the U.S. Court, it is apparent that the petitioner was directed to make payment of 19,500 dollars to the respondent complainant towards the division of assets and debts. A sum of 10,500 dollars of this amount was to be paid within a period of 15 days of the judgment and the balance was to be paid in installments of 1000 dollars per month. However, it is virtually admitted that soon after the judgment was pronounced, the accused petitioner left USA and came back to India in an obvious endeavour to avoid the liability imposed upon him by the USA Court. However, whether or not such conduct would amount to the offences alleged yet remains to be considered. However, it is virtually admitted that soon after the judgment was pronounced, the accused petitioner left USA and came back to India in an obvious endeavour to avoid the liability imposed upon him by the USA Court. However, whether or not such conduct would amount to the offences alleged yet remains to be considered. The respondent, did not take any action whatsoever against the petitioner for a period of three years after passing of the stipulated judgment of divorce by the USA Court and despite the petitioner having left U.S.A. She conveniently concealed the fact of the said judgment while lodging the FIR. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the accused left USA in November, 2014. 7. In view of these facts admitted manifested from the allegations of the complainant as per the detailed FIR and in the factual report placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is evident that ex-facie, there does not exist any cogent material on the record of the case so as to satisfy the Court that the petitioner Ranveer Singh while in India, harassed or humiliated the complainant on account of demand of dowry or treated her in such a manner which could have lead her to commit suicide. Thus ex-facie, ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC are not established from the material available on record so as to justify the registration of the FIR against him for the said offence. Furthermore, upon a thorough perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is not even a slender allegation that any of the ‘streedhan’ articles of the complainant were ever entrusted to the accused petitioner. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the ‘streedhan’ articles were lying with the petitioner’s extended family in India then too, obviously it cannot be inferred that the same were entrusted to the petitioner because admittedly, soon after the marriage, the petitioner left India for USA and the complainant followed him soon thereafter. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the FIR are ex-facie made out against the petitioner. Therefore, none of the offences alleged in the FIR are ex-facie made out against the petitioner. So far as the direction given by the USA Court in the impugned judgment that the petitioner shall pay 19500 dollars to the complainant and also return her ‘streedhan’ articles to her is concerned, the same also would not be sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner, the complainant would be required to avail appropriate remedy for execution thereof. Likewise for the reasons mentioned above, the offence under Section 323 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner. However, since there is an allegation of the complainant that her ‘streedhan’ articles are retained by her matrimonial relatives and as the I.O. has mentioned in the factual report that the offence under Section 406 IPC has been established against the mother-in-law Risalo Devi, he would be free to proceed against her for such offence. 8. In view of the discussion made herein above, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. All further proceedings of the impugned FIR No. 200/2017 registered at the Police Station Taranagar, District Churu are quashed qua the petitioner Ranveer Singh. 9. Investigation shall continue against the other accused.