JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following relief’s : 22(a) to allow this application; (b) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR (Annexure A) being M. Case No. 5/2015 registered with Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda and further be pleased to quash and set aside the further proceedings in connection with the impugned FIR; (c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay the investigation – further proceedings of the impugned FIR (Annexure A) being M. Case No. 5/2015 registered with Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda; (d) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court. 2. The case of the first informant may be summarized as under: 2.1 The respondent no.2 – original complainant lodged a complaint in writing in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheda, for the offence punishable under Sections-323, 504, 498(A), 506(2) r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections-3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2.2 The writ applicant no.1 is the husband, the writ applicant no.2 is the father-in-law and the writ applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant got married with the writ applicant no.1 herein on 12/12/2008. In the complaint, it has been stated that at the time of the marriage, the parents of the complainant gifted certain articles according to their financial capacity, including gold and silver jewellery. Initially, the marital life was quite normal. The applicant no.1, i.e. the husband, took up a job at Singapore. Three months after the departure of the husband to Singapore, the complainant, alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law, left for Singapore. It is stated in the complaint that as the husband wanted to buy a house in Singapore, the parents of the complainant helped the son-in-law by giving him Rs.50,00,000/-. According to the complainant, everything was fine at Singapore, but all of a sudden, the behaviour of the husband changed. The complainant has alleged that her husband developed intimacy for one another woman. Since then, the matrimonial disputes cropped up. 2.3 On 22/03/2013, a baby girl was born, viz. Hiya. According to the complainant, everything was fine at Singapore, but all of a sudden, the behaviour of the husband changed. The complainant has alleged that her husband developed intimacy for one another woman. Since then, the matrimonial disputes cropped up. 2.3 On 22/03/2013, a baby girl was born, viz. Hiya. It is alleged that the husband and his parents were not happy with the birth of a baby girl as they were expecting a baby boy. According to the complainant, on 13/07/2013, she left Singapore and returned to India and since then, she is residing at her parental home. There are many other allegations levelled in the complaint to highlight that there was harassment to the complainant at the end of the applicants. 3. On 03/11/2015, this Court passed the following order:- Rule returnable on 19.2.2016. Mrs. Hansa Punani, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 2 be served directly through the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station. Let there be an ad interim order in terms of para 22(c). Direct service permitted. 4. Thereafter, on 03/11/2017 this Court passed the following order:- It appears from the materials on record that the applicant No.1 got married to the respondent No.2 on 12th December 2012 at Kheda. Within eight months from the date of marriage, they left for Singapore. The applicants Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. They also accompanied the son at Singapore. In 2013, a baby girl was born in the wedlock. It appears that thereafter, the problems cropped up. It is alleged by the respondent No.2 that the husband and her parents did not like the baby girl being born. Thereafter, the matrimonial problems cropped up and the respondent No.2 had to return to India along with the new born baby. The daughter, as on date, is aged 5 years. Both, the husband and the wife are quite young. It is apparent that the case is one of irretrievable break down of marriage. The marriage is dead. There are no chances of reconciliation. In such circumstances, it is meaningless to keep the marriage subsisting. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties do agree that the marriage should be dissolved with the consent of the parties subject to certain terms and conditions. The marriage is dead. There are no chances of reconciliation. In such circumstances, it is meaningless to keep the marriage subsisting. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties do agree that the marriage should be dissolved with the consent of the parties subject to certain terms and conditions. If the marriage is dissolved, both the sides can think of their future. Since there is a minor daughter aged 5, the applicant No.1 will have to consider providing necessary funds for her upbringing, education, marriage, etc. Mr. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants has agreed to talk with his clients in this regard at the earliest. If necessary, the applicant No.1 be called from Signapore so that the parties can sit together, negotiate and put an end to the dispute. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest without any further delay. For the time being, post this matter on 24th November 2017. The developments shall be informed to this Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 24th November 2017. 5. On 01/12/2017, the following order was passed: It appears that the demand of the respondent no.2 is on a very higher side. The settlement is not possible. The matter will have to be heard on merit. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 prays for some time. As a last chance, post this matter on 07/12/2017. This matter will be heard on 07/12/2017 on its own merits. 6. Despite best of the efforts at the end of this Court to bring around some amicable settlement between the parties keeping in mind the interest of the minor daughter, there was no fruitful result. The husband offered around Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife for the maintenance of the minor daughter, whereas, the complainant demanded Rs.60,00,000/-. Having regard to the big difference in the amount, it was not possible for this Court to bridge the gap. The matter was ultimately heard on merits. 7. Mr. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that absolutely vague and general allegations have been levelled by the complainant, and that too, after a period of almost two years from the date the complainant left Singapore and came down to India. It is submitted that on account of petty differences, the complainant could not adjust herself at Singapore, and ultimately, took the decision to return to India alongwith her minor daughter. It is submitted that on account of petty differences, the complainant could not adjust herself at Singapore, and ultimately, took the decision to return to India alongwith her minor daughter. Mr. Raju pointed out that pursuant to the complaint filed by the complainant in Singapore before the High Commission of India, everything was resolved and, therefore, there was no reason for the complainant to thereafter file the present complaint after a period of two years. Mr. Raju pointed out that the house at Singapore was purchased in the joint name of the husband and his wife on 05/04/2012. It was purchased after obtaining a loan from the Singapore Bank and the loan installments are paid by the husband without any financial assistance from the family of the wife. The learned counsel submitted that the incident of 02/02/2015 is also a got-up one only with a view to wriggle out of the delay of two years in lodging the complaint. It is submitted that the marital life of the parties got disturbed on account of the baseless suspicion in the mind of the wife about alleged extramarital affair of her husband. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the FIR be quashed. 8. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. Mr. Parikh would submit that the plain reading of the FIR, prima-facie, discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the police should be permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law. It is submitted that there was incessant harassment to the wife by the applicants at Singapore. In such circumstances, the wife had to leave her matrimonial home while in Singapore and was forced to start residing at the house of one of her friends. Mr. Parikh, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the averments made in the reply filed by the respondent no.2, which is at Page-135 of the paper-book. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 9. Ms. Mr. Parikh, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the averments made in the reply filed by the respondent no.2, which is at Page-135 of the paper-book. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. 9. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR do disclose, prima-facie, a cognizable offence and the police may be permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law. The learned APP submitted that the question, whether the respondent no.2 has in fact, been harassed and treated with cruelty, is a matter of trial. But, at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the FIR should be quashed. 11. The law relating to quashing has been explained by the Supreme Court in details in the case of 'Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', reported in 2015 (3) Scale 616 . Taramani Parakh (supra) was also a case arising from a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. I may quote the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court therein. “11. Law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not made out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the Court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter version. In matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor V. Ramesh Chander and Anr.[4], [4] (2012) 8 SCC 460 it was observed: "27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor V. Ramesh Chander and Anr.[4], [4] (2012) 8 SCC 460 it was observed: "27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. (Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [ (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949 ]; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892 ]; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059]; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703]; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [ (1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; [pic] Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [ (1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869 ]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala [ (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P. [ (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356]; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu [ (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297]; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260 ]; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar [ (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275]; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571] and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat [ (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201]). 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence." 12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj V. State of Punjab & Ors. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj V. State of Punjab & Ors. [ (2000) 5 SCC 207 ], it was observed:" “5.........A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Anr. [ (2000) 8 SCC 547 ], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. V. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ], State of Haryana and Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa V. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr. [ (2011) 11 SCC 259 ]." 14. From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. 15. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa V. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr. [ (2011) 11 SCC 259 ]." 14. From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. 15. There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in-fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible. 16. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra, parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him. This Court found no cogent material against other accused. In Manoj Mahavir, the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier 498A case. This Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra, case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.” 12. It appears from the materials on record that it is the lurking suspicion in the mind of the wife about her husband's extramarital affair with another lady that destroyed the marriage. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.” 12. It appears from the materials on record that it is the lurking suspicion in the mind of the wife about her husband's extramarital affair with another lady that destroyed the marriage. The brother of the respondent no.2 informed the High Commission of India in Singapore about the alleged harassment, and in connection with the same, the Welfare Officer of the High Commission recorded one order dated 03/07/2013, which reads as under:- High Commission of India Singapore (Welfare Division) Reference FR – request from Ms Amibahen Prakash Chandra Bhavsar, an Indian national residing in Singapore, holder of Indian passport No. H 2652270 for assistance in solving some issues arising out of her rocky marital life. Last week, we received a main from Mr. Hardik Prakashchandra Bhavsar, brother of Ms Amibahen seeking our help for his sister who was allegedly being mentally tortured and harassed by her husband and in-laws in Singapore. We contacted her on phone and called her to the High Commission yesterday. Ms. Amibahen stated that she is being mentally tortured and harassed by her husband and in-laws. She has left her husband's home and is presently living with one of her friends with her 4 month old baby. Although, she did not elaborate much on her marital problems, however, the specific issue on which she sought our assistance is that she wants us to help her in getting back her jewellery which are in the custody of her husband and also $19000 which was withdrawn by her husband from her account without her knowledge and consent. After getting back her jewellery and cash, she wants to go back to India with her baby. Although, these are purely matrimonial issues which have to be sorted out mutually either my themselves or by a family court, however, we may make an effort to get her jewellery and cash back from her husband. For that, we need to call her husband to the High Commission, talk to him and try to impress upon him to return the jewellery and cash to his wife. Ms. Amibahen stated that her husband, Mr. Mikin shah is also in Indian national. Submitted for instructions if we can call the husband to the High Commission. (Ramesh Chaturvedi) Welfare Officer 03.07.2013 13. Ms. Amibahen stated that her husband, Mr. Mikin shah is also in Indian national. Submitted for instructions if we can call the husband to the High Commission. (Ramesh Chaturvedi) Welfare Officer 03.07.2013 13. It appears that the High Commission also recorded the statement of the respondent no. 2, wherein she stated as under: My name is Amibahen Prakashchandra Bhavsar IC:58579111G. I want my money & gold back from my husband his name is Mikin Shah & contact number is 91187386. He took my money without my knowledge amount is $19000 which is I want back. I request High Commission to help me in getting back my jwellery & My Money from my husband. Sd/- illegible. 14. The High Commission of India in Singapore summoned the husband, i.e. the writ applicant no.1 herein. The husband appeared and handed over S$19,000 (singapore dollars) and other articles of his wife. The same was acknowledged by the wife as under: Acknowledgment With reference to my petition dated 2nd July 2013 submitted to the High Commission of Singapore for written of S$19000 & Jewellery (gold from my husband Mr. Mikin Shah, I hereby confirm receipt of following in the presence of the welfare officer of the High Commission of India Singapore on this day 9th July 2013. This settles my claim put up to the High Commission for written of my cash jewellary by my husband. (1) $19000 (2) Gold necklace 1 pair (3) Gold bangles 1 pair (4) Gold chain with 1 pendent (5) Gold earrings 1 pair (6) Gold finger rings 2 Sd/- illegible 15. On 15/07/2013, the High Commission of India in Singapore recorded a short order, which reads as under:- High Commission of India Singapore (Welfare Division) Reference notes on pre-page regarding Ms Amibahen Prakashchandra Bhavsar. Mr. Mikin Shah, the husband of Amibahen was called to the High Commission on 9th July, 2013 alongwith Amibahen herself and all the jewellery and cash which Amibahen was claiming from her husband were returned to her in our presence. The entire thing happened smoothly and amicably. Amibahen acknowledged the same. Regarding the problems in their marital life, cautions consellings were entered to them which seemed to work as they vividly showed signs of reconciliation and understanding for each other. For information please. (Ramesh Chaturvedi) Attache (Consular) & Welfare Officer 15.07.2013 16. The entire thing happened smoothly and amicably. Amibahen acknowledged the same. Regarding the problems in their marital life, cautions consellings were entered to them which seemed to work as they vividly showed signs of reconciliation and understanding for each other. For information please. (Ramesh Chaturvedi) Attache (Consular) & Welfare Officer 15.07.2013 16. What is important is the information given by the respondent no.2 to the police in Singapore. The information recorded by the police reads as under: POLICE REPORT (NP299) Police Station Of Origin Choa Chu Kang NPP 116 Teck Whye Lane #01740 SINGAPORE 680116 Tel No: 18007629999 Report No. J/20130629/2163 Date/Time Report Made 29/06/2013 20:22 Vide Report No. F/20130629/0106 Station Diary No. 22 Name of Informant BHAVSAR AMIBAHEN PRAKASHCHANDRA Address APT BLK 306A ANCHORVALE LIND #10-105 SINGAPORE 541306 ID Type/ID No. NRIC NO/S8579111G Contact No. Home/Office: 86882240 Mobile/Pager: 93577890 Nationality INDIAN Email Address Occupation Lab Assistant Sex Female Age 28 Race Indian Language Date/Time of Incident 29/06/2013 09:00 Location of Incident APT BLK 306A Anchorvale Link#10-105 # 10-105 SINGAPORE 541306 Brief details. Ever since I got married in 2008 in India, I had continuous arguments with my husband namely Mikin Shah and parent in laws. In 2009, I came to Singapore together with my in-laws. My husband was already working in Singapore. In 2011, while I was pregnant with my first child, I suspect that my husband was having an affair with a colleague namely Hari Priya Reddy as they were behaving too close and contacting each other all the time. Every time I try to discuss the issue with my husband, it will turn out the opposite and he insisted of not talking about it. My husband had even asked me to leave the house on one occasion when we arguing. I wish to state that my husband family would always torture me mentally by forcing me to do the household chores and insulted me and my family using vulgarities. On 26/06/2013, I asked permission from my husband to go back India to celebrate the birth of my first daughter with my family however my husband did not approved of it. His reason was it was unhealthy for the baby. My husband also did not allow my family to come to Singapore to meet me. On 29/06/2013, I discovered my belongings such as wallet, Employment pass and passport missing. His reason was it was unhealthy for the baby. My husband also did not allow my family to come to Singapore to meet me. On 29/06/2013, I discovered my belongings such as wallet, Employment pass and passport missing. After I called for police, my husband then informed where my belongings were. I suspect he kept my belongings as not to allow me to return to India. I also discovered my money in my POSB Account missing. Initially, I had $20,209.35, I later discovered there was a transaction of $9000/- from my account at 12.54 am. I later checked my balance and there was only a total of $1209.35. I wish to state that only my husband know the details of my account. I also wish to say that 2 of my gold bangles, 3 gold necklace, 4 gold earrings, 2 gold rings, 1 gold nose stud and 3 gold pendant worth more than SGD$10,000 are in my parent-in-laws possession. I wish to state that I am being mentally tortured by my husband and his family. I am not treated like a member of the family. My husband and I have not been sleeping together for past 1 year. 17. The whole idea in highlighting what transpired while the parties were in Singapore is to show that everything came to an end in April, 2013. The husband, alongwith his parents, stayed back in Singapore, whereas, the respondent no.2, alongwith her minor daughter, returned to India. Almost two years thereafter the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint in the Court, and the Court thought fit to ask the police to register the same as an FIR. That is how, the FIR came to be registered as M. Case No.5 of 2015 on 09/02/2015. 18. Prima-facie, it appears that having realized the difficulty to explain the delay of two years, the incident of 02/02/2015 came to be concocted in the FIR. As usual, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the wife has implicated the parents of the husband too. 19. It would have been in the interest of both, the husband and wife to have parted ways by dissolving the marriage with mutual consent. The father is very keen to meet his daughter but, unfortunately, the relations have gone so sour that an innocent child is the victim of the disputes between her parents. 20. 19. It would have been in the interest of both, the husband and wife to have parted ways by dissolving the marriage with mutual consent. The father is very keen to meet his daughter but, unfortunately, the relations have gone so sour that an innocent child is the victim of the disputes between her parents. 20. In view of the aforesaid factual background, I am of the view that the involvement of the police will be nothing but gross abuse of the process of the law. 21. It appears that the respondent no. 2 – wife filed an application before the Court concerned for maintenance. The Court below has passed an order of interim maintenance and has directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants is not sure whether such order has been challenged or not before the higher forum. It appears that it has been challenged by filing the Criminal Revision Application, but the order has not been stayed. If the husband is in arrears towards the maintenance, then it is always open for the wife to initiate appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the amount. Of-course, this is going to be very difficult for the wife as the husband is sitting in Singapore. If the amount is deposited, then the respondent no.2 shall withdraw the same. In any event, if the amount towards arrears of maintenance is not deposited, then appropriate proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law for the recovery of the same. So far as the FIR is concerned, I am of the view that the same deserves to be quashed. 22. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the M. Case No. 5 of 2015 registered with the Kheda Town Police Station, District Kheda, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. At this stage, I once again requested Mr. Parikh to impress upon his client to settle the matter atleast in the interest of the minor daughter. Mr. Parikh submitted that he would once again initiate talks in that direction.