Crl.
Misc.
not M-16100 of 2010 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-16100 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:
19. 3.2013.
Jyoti Ahuja and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.
A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No.23/09 dated 11.11.2008 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short) (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioners No.2 and 3 to enable them to take up all the pleas available to them during trial.
Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioners No.2 and 3.
Learned counsel has further submitted on behalf of petitioner No.1 Jyoti Ahuja that she was the married sister-in-law of the complainant.
Petitioner No.1 had got married before the marriage of the complainant with her (petitioner No.1) brother.
Petitioner No.1 was residing in her matrimonial house since then.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 Crl.
Misc.
not M-16100 of 2010 (O&M) -2- despite service.
A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioner No.1.
General allegations have been levelled against all the accused.
Petitioner No.1 is the married sister-in-law of the complainant and as per the learned counsel for petitioner No.1, the said petitioner had got married before the marriage of the complainant was performed with Rajesh.
It appears that petitioner No.1 has been involved in this case merely because of her relationship with the husband of the complainant.
In Kans Raj versus State of Punjab and otheRs.2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC).their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.
The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1 would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed qua petitioner No.1.
Complaint No.23/09 dated 11.11.2008 under Section 12 of the Act (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua petitioner No.1, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 19, 2013 Gurpreet