Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:
4. 4.2013.
Kiran and others ........Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl.
A.G., Punjab.
None for respondent No.2....SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No.19 dated 30.3.2010, under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Vide order dated 4.8.2011, petition qua petitioner No.3 was dismissed as not pressed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the married sister-in-law of the complainant and is residing at Ropar since December 1987 after her marriage.
Petitioner No.2 is also sister-in-law of the complainant and is residing in village Dadu Majra since Janaury 2000, after her marriage.
Marriage of the complainant with Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - Shakti Hans, son of petitioner No.3 and brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 was performed by way of a simple ceremony.
The aunt (Masi) of Shakti Hans is sister-in-law of the aunt of (Masi) of the complainant.
Thus, there was no occasion for not disclosing fiRs.marriage of the son of petitioner No.3 to the complainant.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent No.2 got married to Shakti Hans on 31.3.2006.
As per the case of the complainant, her parents had given her sufficient dowry at the time of marriage.
However, after 1½ year of marriage, Shakti Hans brought home another woman and a child (boy).The girl disclosed that she was the fiRs.wife of Shakti Hans and the child had been born to her out of the said wedlock.
Shakti Hans as well as his parents and sisters had not disclosed about the factum of earlier marriage of Shakti Hans to the complainant at the time of her marriage.
When Sonia started residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant, all the accused started harassing and giving beatings to the complainant.
She was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the accused after retaining all the articles, belonging to her.
In the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - Section 482, Cr.P.C.Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the fiRs.information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the fiRs.information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.”
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -5 - otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
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.
In the present case, petitioner No.1 had got married in the year 1987 and is residing at Ropar since then.
Petitioner No.2 had got married in January 2000 and is residing in village Dadu Majra since then.
So far as the complainant is concerned, she got married to the brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 on 31.3.2006.
Thus, at that time, petitioners No.1 and 2 were residing in their matrimonial homes.
It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that aunt (Masi) of Shakti Hans was sister-in-law of aunt (Masi) of the complainant.
It is not believable that the complainant did not knot about the earlier marriage of her husband Shakti Hans.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier marriage of the brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 had been dissolved as per custom with the intervention of respectables of both the parties and thereafter, Shakti Hans had performed marriage with the complainant.
It appears that petitioners No.1 Crl.
Misc.
not M-28994 of 2010 (O&M) -6 - and 2 have been involved in the case merely because of their relationship with the husband of the complainant.
Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners No.1 and 2 would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
FIR No.19 dated 30.3.2010, under Section 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua petitioners No.1 and 2, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE April 04, 2013 Gurpreet