Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 of 2006 Date of decision : January 10, 2013 Dev Kumar Garg .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present : Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G.Punjab.
**** RANJIT SINGH, J.
Prayer is for quashing of Complaint No.133/1 dated 26.05.2006 as well as the summoning order dated 14.06.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka.
Rajni, daughter of the petitioner married Anurag Aggarwal son of Farangi Lal-respondent No.2 on 09.09.2002.
Everything initially was going on well.
The petitioner infact has married all his children and life of all his children was having a smooth run except his daughter Rajni.
The petitioner has lost his wife and has single handedly married his daughters after putting great efforts.
The petitioner is No.70 years old and is father of four daughteRs.He claims to have spent sum of ` 15 lacs at the time of Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
2. marriage of his daughter Rajni.
Despite that the family members of the respondent started harassing and maltreating his daughter Rajni for bringing less dowry.
The petitioner claims to have met the demands raised by the in-laws of his daughter including cash amount but their lust knew no end.
The daughter of petitioner gave a birth to a female child on 26.05.2004.
On 07.07.2004, she went to Fazilka i.e.her matrimonial home alongwith her husband Anurag.
As soon as she reached there, her in-laws started maltreating her and raised a demand of ` 1,50,000/- for depositing it in a fixed deposit for the future of the child.
The daughter of the petitioner refused to accede to this demand.
On refusal, respondent No.2 and his son started maltreating daughter of the petitioner.
It is alleged that they made an attempt to kill her by keeping the kitchen cooking gas open.
She escaped unhurt due to the grace of the providence.
On 19.07.2004, respondent no.2 alongwith one Anil Gupta brought back Rajni to Sangrur and left her with the petitioner with demand of ` 1,50,000/-, if the wife wanted to rejoin the company of her husband in the matrimonial home.
After Diwali in the year 2004, her husband took the daughter of the petitioner to Angul (Orissa).There the husband started maltreating his wife i.e.daughter of the complainant and ultimately threw her out of the house on 22.07.2005 alongwith the girl child.
The neighbours interfered then she was allowed entry to the house when the husband kept her and ultimately they both came to Fazilka.
The maltreatment of the daughter of the petitioner again Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
3. started.
On one Diwali eve, the petitioner went to Fazilka with some gifts and some cash amount but the family was not satisfied with the gifts which the petitioner took.
Again her husband took her to Angul where he was posted.
It is alleged that in January 2006, her husband gave her bad beatings and asked her to bring ` 5 lacs from her father.
Faced with this situation, Rajni daughter of the petitioner made complaint to the local police.
The police got the issue settled and her husband promised her to not to harass.
Thereafter, Anurag went for the duty and did not return.
Rajni, daughter of the petitioner gave a telephone call to the petitioner on 27.01.2006.
He then came to learn that her husband had already come to Fazilka.
Petitioner intervened to settle the matter and meeting was convened at Fazilka on 19.03.2006 and then at Abohar on 22.04.2006 but the issues could not be settled.
The girl ultimately thus came back to the Sangrur on 27.03.2006.
Thereafter, her husband left for Nalco Nagar (Orissa) and joined his duties there.
The petitioner had sent her daughter again to Nalco Nagar with the hope that if matter could be settled between husband and wife at their own.
The husband, however, still gave her beatings and threw her out from his house alongwith the child.
In this regard, complaint was made to the Police Station, upon which the case was registered.
The petitioner alongwith other family members again went to Fazilka to settle the matter.
At that time, Anurag his son-in-law and his mother and other family members were present.
But they did not accede to the request of the petitioner and refused to settle his Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
4. daughter.
He had then filed an FIR dated 28.06.2006 under Section 498-A/406 IPC.
Thereafter, respondent no.2 started filing false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner and his family membeRs.Respondent No.2 is an advocate and is practicing at Fazilka.
He is having great influence at Fazilka and, thus, is harassing the family of the petitioner.
In this regard, the petitioner has not challenged the complaint Annexure P-1 filed by respondent No.2 on the ground that no offence is made out from the allegations as made in the complaint.
As per the petitioner, this complaint is only a counter blast to the FIR which he has lodged.
In the complaint it is alleged that Ashok Kumar, brother of the petitioner had tried to strangulate the respondent with intention to kill.
Whereas on that day Ashok Kumar was on Government duty and he had even got a work executed from his employees being S.D.O.in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala.
It is alleged that the petitioner is implicated just to harass and humiliate him.
This is being done to pressurize the daughter of the petitioner to divorce her husband.
Respondent no.2 has not implicated the petitioner and his family members in more than one complaint under Section 504/506 IPC on 19.07.2005 and another complaint has been got filed by the person under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.
A perusal of the complaint would shows that petitioner is named as accused No.2 and his brother Ashok Kumar being accused No.1.
Accused Nos.3 and 6 are the daughters whereas accused No.4 and 5 are son-in-law of accused No.2.
It is alleged Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
5. that they have formed an unlawful assembly and insulted the family of the complainant.
It is alleged that petitioner had got registered one false case at Angul (Orissa) against his son-in-law where he got anticipatory bail.
It is alleged in the complaint that all the accused in connivance with each other and with the intention to kill Anurag son of the complainant came in a car on 26.05.2005 in front of the house of the complainant and started raising lalkaras.
At that time Anurag, son of the complainant was not at home.
Krishan Swamy and one more person were present in the house of the complainant at that time.
One neighbour Bhola Ram also came and saw the incident.
It is alleged that Ashok Kumar tried to kill the complainant by throttling the neck and he could escape with great efforts.
On this basis, the present complaint has been filed.
On the basis of this complaint, all the six persons have been summoned.
The allegations are against accused No.1 i.e.Ashok Kumar who is brother of the petitioner.
There is not a word as alleged against the petitioner.
Otherwise also it is only on account of matrimonial discord that these allegations apparently have been made.
The petitioner's family has already filed complaint under Section 498-A/406 IPC against the son of the complainant.
Because of this dispute, it can be reasonable to infer that the present complaint is only a counter blast.
At the time of arguments, Court suggested the parties to negotiate and settle the issue if possible.
Counsel for the petitioner expressed his willingness and readiness to send his daughter immediately without any condition.
However, counsel for the respondents expressed his Crl.
Misc.
not M-68869 o”
6. inability by saying that respondents may be reluctant and are otherwise ready to settle the dispute by separating on payment of some compensation, which was not acceptable to the counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, negotiating settlement of this dispute was not possible.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
In the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, J.T.1999(4) SC 650.Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that 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.
The fact that some person allegedly had gone to the house of the complainant in a car at Fazilka from Sangrur and indulge in this act appeared so absurd that it itself is a ground to interfere.
Accordingly, the allegations made in the complaint are apparently far fetch.
This aspect has not been appreciated and considered by the Court while summoning the petitioner.
In any case, there are no allegations worth against the petitioner.
Accordingly, present proceedings of the summoning of the petitioner is unfair and uncalled for.
It was only lead to abuse of process of law.
The complaint and the summoning order against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
January 10, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) reena JUDGE