Husband's Claim He Cannot Detain Own Wife No Ground to Quash Section 97 CrPC Search: Rajasthan High Court

The husband (petitioner No. 1), his relatives and respondent No. 3 belong to a caste that practises 'Aatta Satta' exchange marriages. The husband's sister married into respondent No. 3's family and, in exchange, a woman of that family married the husband; they have a daughter and a son. The sister's marriage failed amid alleged cruelty (para 2). Respondent No. 3 then moved the SDO under Sections 97 and 98 CrPC alleging illegal detention of the wife and children, and on 19.06.2024 the SDO directed the SHO to search for and produce them (paras 1, 2.1). The wife replied that respondent No. 3 was seeking revenge (para 2.2). The petitioners sought quashing as an abuse of process (paras 2.3, 4).

The Court held that initiating proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 CrPC is a legally valid process to ascertain whether someone is wrongfully confined. Issuing a notice/warrant to verify any wrongful confinement meets the statutory requirements, so the proceedings should not be set aside without the SDO's proposed enquiry (para 5). A husband's claim that he cannot detain his wife and children may not always hold true, especially where there is evidence or a credible allegation of coercion, threat or abuse; the SDO is expected to consider whether the petitioners exerted undue influence or control over them (para 6). Given the acrimony, the welfare of the wife and children is paramount, and even a remote possibility that they are held against their will or mistreated makes it the State's duty to let the process continue. The Court could not rule out that the wife's reply was made under pressure (para 7). Summary quashing would undermine the process meant to protect family members (para 8). Because the proceedings only ascertain facts, quashing them prematurely could keep the truth hidden and cause injustice to the alleged victims (para 9).