The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 452, 500, 506, 509, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Surya Partap Singh ruled that the existence of matrimonial litigation does not grant a license to forcibly enter a house and assault the occupants, even if the petitioners alleged they visited the premises to prevent an illegal second marriage.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 551 dated April 8, 2017, lodged at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The complainant, Nootan, alleged that on April 7, 2017, during a religious function (‘Pooja of Swami Satya Narain Bhagwan and Havan’) at her residence, a group of individuals, including the petitioner Vandana Tyagi, entered the house at around 3:30 P.M.
The complainant alleged that the intruders hurled abuses at her and her daughter, threw utensils and other articles meant for serving meals, and manhandled them. The complainant stated that Vandana Tyagi claimed her husband had solemnized a second marriage. Vandana was allegedly accompanied by her parents, sister, and several other persons who created a nuisance for approximately 45 minutes.
Submissions of the Parties
The petitioners, including Vandana Tyagi and her in-laws, approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, terming it a misuse of the process of law.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, argued that the facts were twisted by the complainant. It was submitted that Petitioner No. 1 (Vandana) was married to Respondent No. 1 on May 20, 2009, and they have a daughter. The counsel alleged that the husband had subjected Vandana to cruelty for dowry, leading to prior litigation including an FIR in 2019 and petitions under Section 125 Cr.P.C and the Domestic Violence Act.
The petitioners contended that on the date of the incident, they learned that Respondent No. 1 was attempting to solemnize an illegal second marriage with Respondent No. 3. They claimed to have approached the police authorities to prevent this act. The petitioners argued that they visited the spot with local police officials on the instructions of a senior police officer and that the entire event was recorded on video. They asserted that despite the presence of police and video evidence, a false FIR was slapped against them as a counter-blast.
Conversely, Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, opposed the petition. The State argued that there were specific and categorical allegations against the petitioners regarding forcible entry, use of abusive language, and assault. The State contended that prima facie evidence had been collected during the investigation and that the credibility of the allegations could not be adjudged at this stage without a trial. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
Court’s Analysis and Observation
Justice Surya Partap Singh examined the parameters for quashing an FIR as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and recent judgments including M/s Balaji Traders Vs. The State of U.P. and Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan.
The Court reiterated that the power of quashing should be exercised “sparingly with circumspection” and only in the “rarest of rare cases.” The Bench observed that the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at the initial stage.
Addressing the specific facts of the case, the Court observed:
“Once there are very specific allegations against the petitioners merely on the ground that some litigation between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.1, with regard to matrimonial discord is going on, does not permit the petitioners to forcibly entered into the house of a person without permission, and assaulted them.”
The Court further addressed the petitioners’ argument regarding the presence of police officials during the incident. Justice Singh noted:
“For the sake of arguments, even if, the contents of the petition are taken of their face value that the above mentioned incident had been taken place in the presence of police officials, even then the petitioners had no right to enter into the premises of complainant and assault her.”
Decision
The High Court held that the veracity of the allegations contained in the complaint is yet to be determined, and the prima facie evidence collected by the investigating agency cannot be brushed aside merely on the plea of false implication.
Concluding that the prosecution of the petitioners does not amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it was devoid of merits.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vandna Tyagi and others Versus Jatin Tyagi and others
- Case Number: CRM-M No.7636 of 2021 (O&M)
- Citation: 2026:PHHC 014339
- Coram: Justice Surya Partap Singh
