Major Siddhartha Ahluwalia v. State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Hon'ble V.K Bist, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R dated 01.11.2013 registered as Case Crime No. 126 of 2013 filed under Section 498-A, 323, 506 of I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of aforesaid F.I.R

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this Court that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent no. 3 on 23.11.2005 at Gurgaon, Haryana. After the marriage, the respondent no. 3 joined the family of the petitioner. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was born. Thereafter, on the ground of cruelty and physical abuses, petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. The divorce suit was decreed ex-parte. Against the ex-parte decree, the respondent no. 3 filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree. Same was allowed on 06.11.2012 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Appeal from Order being A.O No. 547 of 2012 before the Division Bench of this Court. Same is subjudice before the Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 was love marriage and no dowry has ever been taken by the petitioner from the respondent no. 3 or from her family members. He argued that the impugned F.I.R has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner; with malafide intention and only to harass the petitioner. He submitted that in fact, at no point of time, there was any demand of dowry made by the petitioner either from the respondent no. 3 or from her parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that had there been demand of dowry at earlier stage, the respondent no. 3 would have lodged the F.I.R that time itself. He argued that this clearly shows that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the matter.

On the other hand, Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 submitted that after the marriage, the respondent no. 3, on the request of the petitioner, started living with her in-laws. He submitted that the respondent no. 3 is still living with her in-laws. He argued that the respondent no. 3 did not lodge the F.I.R earlier because she was interested in saving her matrimonial life. He submitted that their daughter is 5 years old.

This petition was listed yesterday. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3 will appear before this Court today.

Major Siddhartha Ahluwalia (petitioner) as well as Smt. Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia (respondent no. 3) are present in the Court today. Smt. Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia submitted before this Court that she is still ready for compromise and said that “let her husband come to her and with her family members (in-laws)”. Major Siddhartha Ahluwalia declined for the same and submitted that after obtaining the divorce decree, he married with another girl.

I have considered the submission advanced by the respective parties as well as their learned counsel.

Though there appears to be delay in lodging the impugned F.I.R, but I am convinced with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the respondent no. 3 could not lodge the F.I.R earlier because she was interested in saving her matrimonial life. I have perused the impugned F.I.R In the impugned F.I.R, only allegation of demand of dowry from the respondent no. 3 has been made against the petitioner. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R, it transpires that offence is made out against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that where offence is disclosed in the F.I.R, the High Court should not interfere in such matters.

Considering the totality of facts of the present case, this Court thinks it a fit case where the High Court should not interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.

Stay application stands rejected.

Since the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army, it is directed that in case petitioner moves bail application, the Court concerned shall decide the same expeditiously, if possible, on the same day.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.