ORDER P.K. Jain, J.
1. The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Anita Goel is wife of applicant No. 10 Jatinder Kumar Mittal. She lodged a report dated 4-11-1996 against the applicants at Police Station Loha Mandi, Agra on the basis of which a case Crime No. 236/96 under Sections 323, 506, 498A, the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet as contained in Annexure 7 against all the applicants under Sections 323, 498A, 506, 406 and 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P Act.
2. The allegations in the First Information Report are that the first informant was married to the applicant NO. 10 on 16-7-1991. After the marriage the accused persons who are residents of Delhi have been telling the first informant that her parents were millionaire but they did not give anything at the time of marriage and they have been pressing (her) to bring ten lacs for establishment of a factory by Jatinder Kumar. Whenever she refused to accede to their request, she was ill-treated and was beaten with kicks and fists and they also threatened her that if she did not bring the money, she would be killed by burning. She narrated all that happened between 16-7-1991 to 2-11-1996 in the First Information Report. It was stated that on 31-10-1996 her brother Vivek Kumar and Virendra Kumar, mother and one Dharam Chand went with her to police station at Shalimar Bagh and S.H.O. sent her to her matrimonial home with instructions to accused persons that till the marriage was dissolved applicant No. 10 Jitendra Kumar shall maintain the first informant Smt. Anita and also warned them, not to make demand of dowry of future. It Is further alleged that on 2-11-1996 at about 3 p.m., her husband 'Jethani' Uma Mittal, 'Jeth' Ravindra Kumar and 'Dewar' Surendra Kumar took her out of the house in a car on the pretext that they were going to temple and at about 8 p.m. she was pushed out of the car in Agra in front of near Bhagwan Talkies and the accused persons went away telling her that till she brought Rupees ten lac she will not be kept by them and further threatened her that in case she made complaint to the police she will be killed by burning. While she was being taken in the car, her husband, Dewar and Jeth abused her and assaulted her. Smt. Uma Mittal pressed her throat while her husband, Dewar and Jeth caught hold her hands and feet.
3. By the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the applicants had prayed that the first information report dated 4-11-1996 in the aforesaid case crime and proceedings pursuant to the said First Information Report and also the charge-sheet submitted by the police may be quashed.
4. It is alleged in the affidavit accompanying the application that after the marriage. Smt. Anita Goel lived with her husband the applicant No. 10 at their residence at Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi till 2-8-1991 and since thereafter they were living separately. On 21-8-1991 younger brother of Smt. Anita Goel misbehaved with applicant No. 10 and his family members. Thereafter Smt. Anita Goel told her husband that if her demands were not met she would pour kerosene oil on her and to call the police and would get all the family members arrested. On 27-10-1996 Smt. Anita Goel and her relation along with two persons claiming to be from U.P. Police forcibly entered the house of Smt. Uma Mittal and misbehaved with her. Smt. Uma Mittal lodged a report the same day. The police of police station Shalimar Bagh called both the parties at the police station on 31-10-1996. On that date, applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 10 appeared before S.H.O. Police Station Shalimar Bagh, brothers of Smt. Anita Goel also came but Smt. Anita did not come. Thereafter applicant No. 10 husband of Smt. Anita Goal filed Hindu Marriage case No. 787/96 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. Smt. Anita Mittal however, to counteract the petition, lodged the report as aforesaid at police station Loha Mandi, Agra. Allegations in the report are false and frivolous and concocted and no such incident as alleged had not been taken place. It is alleged in the application that the allegations are absurd and no case Under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out. If at all a case is made out u/SECTION. 498A, I.P.C. it is cognizable by the Court at Delhi and can be investigated by Delhi Police. It was further alleged that applicants No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are not alleged to have at all participated in the incident as alleged on 2-11-1996. It is also stated that Jatinder Kumar Mittal applicant No. 10 husband of Smt. Anita Mittal lives separately while remaining applicants 1 to 9 live at separate places and lastly it is stated that applicants No. 1 and 2 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively are aged more than 65 years and they are undergoing medical treatment since long.
5. A supplementary affidavit of applicant-Jatinder Kumar Mittal was also filed in which it is stated that after the First Information Report was registered at Police Station Loha Mandi, Agra, the process of investigation was transmitted to Delhi under the orders of the Circle Officer, Vth Agra as the offences were found to have been committed in the territory of Delhi. A notice dated 27-11-1996 was received by the applicant for appearance before the Officer-in-Charge Crime (Women Cell) North West District Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 3-12-1996. All the applicants appeared before the Officer-in-Charge Crime (Women Cell) who recorded their statements and permitted all the applicants to go without taking any coercive measures against them. However, on bail application being filed by the applicants the District Court at Delhi sent back the investigation to the Police at Agra on ground of territorial jurisdiction. The police of police station Loha Mandi, Agra after investigation submitted charge-sheet. It was again reiterated that no offence under Section 307 or 406, I.P.C. was made out.
6. No counter-affidavit has been filed by Smt. Anita Goel, respondent No. 2. Only an affidavit of Sri Dilip Kumar Agarwal, brother of respondent No. 2 has been filed. In his affidavit Sri Dilip Kumar Agarwal has stated that the marriage between respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 10 was the result of one advertisement published in Hindustan Times showing the financial status of petitioner No. 10 as Chemical Engineer and running two Chemical Factories. Just after the marriage the petitioners made demand of Rs. ten lacs from Smt. Anita Goel and her parents for establishing petitioner No. 10 in the business. It was found that the petitioner No. 10 had no Chemical factory nor he was a qualified Chemical Engineer and he was simply a servant in the factory of his brother Ravindra Kumar Mittal. By an order dated 19-12-1996 the Deputy Commissioner of Police on behalf of Commissioner, Delhi passed an order that the present case be investigated by the local police of Police Station Loha Mandi, Agra as the last bid to kill her was made at Agra. It is wrong to alleged that the First Information Report is the result of divorce petition. As a matter of fact divorce petition was filed on 15-11-1996 being Hindu Marriage Act case No. 903 of 1996. It was reiterated that since after the marriage applicant No. 10 and his family - members-have been making constant de mand of Rs. ten lacs for establishment of a factory for petitioner No. 10. During the night of 23/24-8-1991 respondent No. 2 was brutally beaten by applicant No. 10 and other applicants. She jumped into the house of one Gulab Chandra Bhutoria and the said Gulab Chandra Bhutoria informed about the incident to the parents of respondent No. 2 through telephone. The parents of respondent No. 2 approached applicant No. 10 and other applicants when again demand of Rs. ten lacs was made. Thereafter on 25-8-1991 the complainant (respondent No. 2) returned back to her parents house at Agra with her parents and got herself medically examined and treated at District Hospital, Agra on 2 6-8-1991. During the period from August 25, 1991 till August, 25, 1996 several attempts were made by the family members of respondent No. 2 but all the attempts went in vain and the applicant continued to demand Rs. ten lacs. On 25-8-1996 the applicant No. 10 and applicants Nos. 1 to 9 came at the house of the complainant at Agra and informed that if demand of Rs. ten lacs was not fulfilled then they will think about the second marriage of applicant No. 10. The allegations of paras 4 to 14 of the. affidavit were false and concocted and the First In-formation Report dated 4-11-1996 was based on true facts. The petitioners had lodged a false complaint against complainant and her family members at P. S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Shish Ram and Amar Nath Gupta are the family friends and Industrial fraternity of the applicants, their statements were recorded by the I.O. and they supported the prosecution version. On 2-11-1996 at about 8.00 p.m. respondent No. 2 was brutally beaten by applicant No. 10 and applicants Nos. 1 to 9 and she was left alone at the Bhagwan Talkies crossing Chauraha, Agra with a warning that she can return back with Rs. ten lacs, otherwise she may be killed.
7. Applicant No. 10 in this rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of the affidavit filed by brother of respondent No. 2. In para 4 it is stated that the marriage was negotiated on the basis of an advertisement published in Hindustan Times, Newspaper. It was further stated that applicant No. 10 has never claimed himself to be a Chemical Engineer or owing any Chemical Factory. It was also stated that Hindu Marriage Act Case No. 783 of 1996 was filed on 31-10-1996. The said petition came up for hearing before Smt. Urmila, Additional District Judge, Delhi on 4-11-1996. Copy of the order passed on 4-11-1996 is Annexed as RA-2 and since the petition suffered from certain formal defects it was permitted to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition. Thereafter fresh petition was filed which was registered as Matrimonial Petition No. 903 of 1996. The correct facts were that soon after the marriage Smt. Anita Goel started pressing her husband to get his share in the joint family and to leave joint family by living separately and in order to give effect to evil design she treated the family members of the husband with great disrespect and started calling them as evils and devils and further called her father-in-law as useless creature. She also occasionally insulted her husband in public. Fed up with the outrageous behavior of Smt. Anita Goel applicant No. 10 left his house on 22-8-1991 leaving behind a note in the name of his father. The allegations of demand of Rs. ten lacs are false. The medical report dated 4-11-1996 itself shows that the injuries were superficial and manipulated. Another supplementary report was filed by Sri J. K. Mittal in which certain documents were appended.
8. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tej Pal assisted by Sri S. P. Singh learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well learned A.G.A. for State have been heard at length.
9. Perusal of the First Information Re port which runs in 7/8 pages shows that it relates to different incidents and different places. The first part of the incident relates to a period from the date of marriage till 25-8-1991 at Delhi when the first informant finally left the matrimonial house with her brothers and parents and went back to Agra to live with them. In this occurrence of the prosecution, all the ten applicants are nominated. The allegations related to demand of dowry, attempt to commit murder and harassment of the informant in connection with demand of dowry. The second part of the incident relates to 25-8-1996 and the allegations are against husband Jitendra Kumar Mittal (applicant No. 10) Ashok Kumar Mittal and Ravindra Kumar Mittal, husband's brother (applicants No. 3 and 6) and Smt. Uma Mittal wife of Ashok Kumar Mittal applicant No. 7 when it is stated that during an attempt of reconciliation at Agra, the above named four applicants again made a demand of dowry and threatened that in case the demand was not fulfilled, the applicant Jitendra Kumar will obtain a decree of divorce and will marry some other girl. The third part of the incident relates to a period between 19-10-1996 to 31-10-1996 at Agra when the brother of the first informant made an attempt of reconciliation and went to Delhi along with certain witnesses and ultimately on 31-10-1996 with the pressure of police station Shalimar Bagh at Delhi and relations of first informant, the accused-Jitendra Kumar agreed to keep Smt. Anita with him and last part of the incident relates to 2-11-1996 which is said to have started from Delhi and ended in Agra. Only four accused, namely, Jitendra Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, Surendra Kumar and Smt. Uma Mittal are said to have participated in this incident.
10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants is that so far as the first part of the incident and third part of the incident are concerned, the same are said to have occurred in Delhi and therefore, could be investigated by Delhi Police and tried by the Courts of Delhi. The Courts at Agra had no jurisdiction to try these offences. As regards the incidents dated 25-8-1996 and 2-1-1996, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants is that story has been concocted by the prosecution in order to make out the jurisdiction of the Courts at Agra and the theory set up by the prosecution is so absurd that no man of ordinary prudence would believe the prosecution version as contained in these incidents. Incident dated 2-11-1996 has been concocted in order to pressurize the accused party to withdraw the divorce petition. It is also submitted that in these incidents alleged by occurrence on different dates and different places at least five of the accused persons, namely, Hem Raj Mittal, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, Smt. Manita Mittal, Hari Bhushan Gupta and Smt. Pushpa Devi are not said to have participated in the incidents dated 25-8-1996 and 2-11-1996. It is lastly submitted that no offence is disclosed from the allegations contained in the First Information Report with regard to the incident dated 2-11-1996. For the complainant opposite party No. 2 it is submitted that even though the first part of the incident might not have taken place at Agra but the entire prosecution version relates to demand of dowry and harassment of the victim in connection of demand of dowry, and on occasions dowry was demanded at Agra also. Therefore, the Courts at Agra have jurisdiction. It is also submitted that an attempt to commit murder was made which is evident from the allegations contained in the First Information Report besides extending the threat to kill in case demand of dowry was not fulfilled. This incident occurred at Agra. Therefore, the Courts at Agra have jurisdiction to take cognizance. It is further submitted that the police on completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet and have prima facie found truth in the prosecution version. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be scuttled down or short-circuited at the initial stage. It is also submitted that a divorce petition was filed much later than 31-10-1996 and it cannot be said that First Information Report was lodged thwart the divorce petition.
11. From the material placed on record the uncontroverted facts appear to be as follows :
(i) Since after the marriage of the first informant (opposite party No. 2) and applicant No. 10 the relation between the husband and wife were strained. According to the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Anita Goel misbehaved with her husband as also the family members and pressurized for living separately. She also threatened that if her demands were not met she would pour kerosene oil upon her and would get the family members arrested whereas according to the counter-affidavit filed by the brother of the opposite party No. 2 there was misrepresentation from the side of the applicants who through matrimonial advertisement represented that the applicant No. 10 was a Chemical Engineer and was running two Chemical Factories. After marriage it transpired that the husband was neither qualified as Chemical Engineer nor was owning any Chemical Factory.
(ii) That on 25-8-1991 Smt. Anita Goel left the matrimonial home to live with her parents at Agra and there appeared no contact between the parties till 24-8-1996. There also appeared no allegation of demand of dowry during this period.
(iii) That there was some incident between 27-10-1996 to 31-10-1996 for which the parties have their own stories.
12. It also transpires from the record that a divorce petition was presented by the applicant No. 10 on 31-10-1996 before the Court at Delhi which had to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition. The copy of the order is Annexure-R.A. 2 dated 4-11-1996. Thereafter the petition was filed afresh after removing the defect. It was registered as H.M.A. Case No. 903/96 on 18-11-1996.
13. Before the rival contentions are dealt with it may be pointed out that the well settled legal position is that the power Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly in order to prevent the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court must take precaution that the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C. are not abused. Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering a catena of judicial pronouncement had laid down certain broad guidelines and circumstances in which power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be invoked by the High Court and a criminal prosecution may be short circuited.
14. Para 108 in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 may be reproduced as follows (at page 629 of AIR) :
"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above. We have the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. 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 any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 of 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 of 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 private and personal grudge."
15. Yet another well settled principle of law is that while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the High Court is to exercise restraints from examining the evidence meticulously and critically and to find out whether the evidence is reliable or not. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment has observed that "in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A (old Code which is equivalent to Section 482, Cr. P.C.) the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is function of the trial Magistrate and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.
16. It may be pointed out that in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, 1993 Cri LJ 600 : AIR 1993 SC 892 the Apex Court has held in para 130 of the judgment as follows (at pages 922-923 of AIR) :
The Criminal Courts are clotted with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, exdebito justiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration which alone the Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and they very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
17. It is in the light of the above settled position of law that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have to be considered.
18. As regards first part of the prosecution case, as already pointed out above, the incident relates to the period from the date of marriage till 25th August, 1991 at Delhi. Thereafter the first informant finally left the matrimonial home and started living at Agra. This is undisputed case of the parties that marriage was performed in Delhi and the entire incidents which occurred up to 25-8-1991 took place in Delhi. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that thereafter there was intervening period of around 5 years and nothing happened between this period. The incident which took place in Delhi could have been enquired into by the Delhi Police and could be tried by the Courts at Delhi. There can be no denial that from the facts stated in the First Information Report, incidents which occurred between the date of marriage till 25-8-1991, are prima facie offences punishable under Section 498A and 323 or 324, I.P.C., if not under Section 307, I.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the subsequent incident occurred in continuity of the offence which occurred between the date of marriage till 25th August, 1991 and last part of the incident occurred at Agra and, therefore, the Courts at Agra have jurisdiction to try the offences which occurred at different times and different places. This argument on the facts and circumstances of the present case is not sustainable. There was lull for a period of five years after 25th August, 1991 and nothing happened between the parties. Subsequent allegations of demand of dowry (if not found to be absurd as contended by the learned counsel for the applicants) cannot be treated to be in the same transaction in which earlier incident between the date of marriage till 25th August, 1991 occurred. The offences which were committed at Delhi during the above period could only be investigated by the Delhi Police and tried by the Courts jurisdiction at Delhi. In this view of the matter the Courts at Agra having no territorial jurisdiction over the matter could not take cognizance and police of Agra could not have investigated the case so far as it related to incident up to 25th August, 1991. On these grounds, in my view, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants can be upheld.
19. Similarly the third part of the occurrence i.e. between 19-10-1996 to 31-10-1996 is said to have occurred at Delhi. Where attempts for reconciliation were made and the first informant and her brothers had gone to Delhi. The parties are at issue as to what happened during this period at Delhi. The applicants have adduced evidence to the effect that some members of the complainant party went to Delhi and went to the house of Smt. Uma Mittal, the applicant No. 7 and misbehaved with her. A report in this regard was lodged by Smt. Uma Mittal copy whereof is Annexure-SRA-2. It is alleged that S.H.O. Salimar Bag called both the parties on 31-10-1996 on which date brothers of Smt. Anita Goel and the first informant appeared but Smt. Anita Goel did not appear. On the other hand, counter-allegations made by the first informant in her report are that on 31 -10-1996 the first informant, her mother and brothers etc. went to the police station at Shalimar Bag where the S.H.O. sent the first informant with accused applicant No. 10 with a direction that she will remain with him till the marriage is not dissolved and he was also warned not to make any demand of dowry. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that even though the material produced by the parties in support of their allegations and counter-allegations is not scanned and believed or disbelieved, no offence shall be made out from the allegation made between the period from 27-10-1996 to 31-10-1996. It is also submitted that this part of the incident also occurred at Delhi. Having considered the material allegations contained in the First Information Report with regard to as to what happened between 27-10-1996 to 31-10-1996 rather up to 2-11-1996 in Delhi, in my view, no offence is made out.
20. Now coming to the incident dated 2-11-1996 as already pointed out above the allegations are that on 2-11-1996 at about 3.00 p.m. applicant No. 10 Jitendra Kumar Mittal, applicant No. 7 Smt. Uma Mittal, applicant No. 3 Ravindra Kumar Mittal and applicant No. 5 Surinder Kumar Mittal are said to have taken the first informant in a car to Agra on pretext of visiting a temple. It is further alleged that at about 8.00 p.m. they reached Agra and the first informant was pushed out of the car with exhortation that unless she comes with Rs. ten lacs she will not be kept by them. It is further alleged that they threatened that in case she made a complaint to the police she will be done to death by burning. It cannot be disputed that these allegations, if not found to be absurd certainly make out offences under Sections 506 and 498A of the I.P.C. It is further to be seen that the first informant has also stated that while she was being transported from Delhi to Agra the accused abused her and assaulted her and attempted to commit her murder by pressing her neck. Again this part of the story if not found to be absurd, would make an offences under Sections 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits that in this incident only 4 accused are said to have participated and others have not assigned by role. Therefore, the submission of charge-sheet against them is without disclosing any evidence. There cannot be two opinions in this regard. There is no allegation that applicants Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are not assigned any role in the incident dated 2-11-1996 and on the basis of the above allegations they could not have been charge-sheeted. Now relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal it is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are 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. t is submitted that the allegations of attempt to commit the murder by pressing neck of the first informant are not corroborated by any medical evidence and in a running car all the four accused cannot participate in pressing the neck of the first informant. It is further submitted that on 2-11-1996 the theory of four accused took the first informant in a car to Agra is itself highly absurd and no man of ordinary prudence would believe it. There appears to be substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants. The Court is conscious of the legal position that this Court is not supposed to examine truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations by meticulous examination of the evidence. But if on the face of it for the reasons that the first informant is a literate lady she would not have easily acceded to the request without getting suspicious; no one would believe that 4 accused would take the first informant in a car and push her out of the car without a search; there is no corroborative medical evidence of pressing her neck; this part of the story has to be looked into in the light of the facts and circumstances which are said to have occurred earlier and if it is considered in the said backdrop the same it appears to be highly absurd that the accused would have gone to Agra in the manner as alleged by the first| informant.
21. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No. 10 had filed a divorce petition on 31-10-1996 whereafter the present report was lodged on 4-10-1998. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first informant opposite party that material produced before the Court shows that the divorce petition was filed much after 4-11-1996 and notices were issued in the year 1997. The accused have filed copy of the said petition which was filed on 31-10-1996 along with the copy of the order sheet which is Annexure-RA-2 being HMA No. 783 of 1996. The order was passed on 4-11-1996 in this petition permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition with permission to file a fresh petition. It has already been found above that relations between the parties were strained and threats for divorce were extended by the applicants. Even though the notices of divorce petition might not have been served upon the first informant, possibility of first informant's report being lodged to counter the threats of dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce cannot be ruled out. The First Information Report, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants was filed with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused and to pressurise for compromise on the terms of the first informant. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances that no action was taken till 4th November, 1996 even though the demand of dowry was made soon after the marriage in 1991 and harassment started soon thereafter and the relations between the parties were highly strained. The First Information Report in all probabilities was filed with ulterior motive. In these circumstances there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants.
22. The incident dated 25-8-1996 has also been considered in the background stated above. In this incident applicant No. 10, applicant No. 7, applicant No. 3 and applicant No. 6 are said to have participated. It is again absurd that the accused will go from Agra for a compromise so that the disputes between the parties are sorted out but at the time again put a condition that they will keep the wife only if demand of payment of Rs. Ten lacs as dowry is fulfilled.
23. Having carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties it is a fit case in which powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. must be exercised by the Court. Consequently in the light of the foregoing discussions the application for quashing the First Information Report dated 4-11-1996 in case Crime No. 236 of 1996, under Sections 323/506/498A/406 and 307 of the I.P.C. and the charge-sheet submitted by the police as well as the proceedings in pursuance to the said charge-sheet are hereby quashed.