Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 498-A & 323–Order of framing the charges–Sustainability–FIR was lodged after expiry of nine years after the marriage–General allegations for subjecting the non-petitioner no. 2 with cruelty for a demand of a Maruti Car and one lakh in cash–Mother-in-law, father-in-law, and unmarried sister-in-law were also named without any specific role of them–In the investigation, charge u/s. 406 was not found–From the contents of FIR, it is revealed that the non-petitioner was residing at a different home, separate from the residence of petitioners–Trial Court acted in excess of jurisdiction by making a meticulous analysis of statements of witnesses and there by committed jurisdictional error in framing the charge against the petitioners mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law–Marriage has been dissolved by dismissing the application of non-petitioner no. 2 u/s. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act–Proceedings qua the petitioners deserve to be quashed.
