Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:
06. 2.2013.
Sachin Sharma and others ........Petitioners versus Radhika Sharma ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the respondent ....SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' for short) for quashing of the complaint case No.372/2/09 dated 17.8.2009 along with Form-I under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short) (Annexure P-7) as well as notice dated 3.11.2009 issued under Section 12 of the said Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, petitioner No.1 has died on 12.12.2010 and, hence, the petition qua him may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel on behalf of petitioners No.2 and 3 has submitted that the said petitioners were the parents-in-law of the respondent.
In fact, respondent had lodged FIR No.17 Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - dated 17.2.2009 at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar against petitioners No.2 and 3 and petitioner No.1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).In the said case, matter was duly inquired by the police and it was found that the petitioners had been falsely involved in the case.
After thorough investigation, challan was presented against Sachin Sharma.
Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioners No.2 and 3 were residing in Noida and, hence, the Court at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners No.2 and 3 were liable to face the trial.
After hearing the learned counsel for petitioners No.2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
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 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 Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - 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 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 Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -4 - 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 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 the present case, respondent has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act Annexure P-7.
Earlier respondent had lodged FIR No.17 dated 17.2.2009 under Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -5 - Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.
The said FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
A perusal of the same reveals that after thorough investigation of the case, challan was ordered to be presented against Sachin Sharma only.
It was found that the respondent had lived with her husband at Noida till 15.9.2008.
Respondent got married to Sachin Sharma on 10.12.2006.
The daughter of petitioners No.2 and 3 was mentally sick and was bed-ridden and was being looked after by them.
It also transpired that petitioner No.3 Narinder Sharma was a heart patient.
Respondent had left the matrimonial home on account of trouble caused by her husband.
Husband of the respondent i.e.Sachin Sharma died on 12.12.2006.
A perusal of Annexure P-7 reveals that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.7.2009 and it was ordered that she was entitled to receive ` 3,000/- per month as maintenance.
The complaint under the Act was filed in April 2009.
Thus, similar allegations levelled by the respondent in FIR under Section 498-A IPC were duly inquired by the police and it was found that petitioners No.2 and 3 were innocent.
It transpired during police enquiry that dispute was only between the respondent and her husband.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 were already taking care of their mentally sick daughter.
In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners No.2 and 3 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Complaint case No.372/2/09 dated 17.8.2009 along with Form-I under Section Crl.
Misc.
not M-31929 of 2009 (O&M) -6 - 12 of the Act (Annexure P-7) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua petitioners No.2 and 3, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 06, 2013 Gurpreet