Full Judgment
Crl.Misc.not M- 1538 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.not M- 1538 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
11. 3.2013 Sunaina and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Balraj Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
**** SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.432 dated 20.9.2010 under Sections 494, 506, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at police Station Model Town Panipat District Panipat (Annexure P1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Krishan Kumar had got married to petitioner No.1 Sunaina on 22.4.2004.
The couple had been blessed with a daughter out of the said Crl.Misc.not M- 1538 of 2012 (O&M) 2 wedlock.
However, in-laws of the complainant were greedy persons and harassed him.
The in-laws of the complainant refused to send his wife to the matrimonial home without payment of money demanded by them.
A complaint under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC filed by petitioneRs.side was dismissed due to not prosecution.
Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent by petitioner No.1 but the same was dismissed on 14.3.2009.
On 14.4.2010, petitioners demanded ` 2,00,000/- from the complainant and threatened him that they would re-marry petitioner No.1 with some other person without getting a divorce.
Since the complainant could not fulfill the greed of the petitioneRs.marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with Sunil.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, a compromise had been effected between the parties.
Petitioner No.1 had withdrawn the case filed by her against respondent No.2.
Thereafter, the FIR in question had been lodged against the petitioneRs.Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that petitioner No.1 had performed marriage with Sunil during the subsistence of her marriage with respondent No.2.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure P-7.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Crl.Misc.not M- 1538 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Annexure P-7 is the information supplied by the Assistant Public Information Officer to respondent No.2 and as per the same, petitioner No.1 was residing with Sunil son of Om Parkash Jangra as his wife.
The allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against the petitioners are serious in nature.
After thorough investigation of the case, challan has been presented in this case.
Respondent No.2 sought the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein, he was supplied the information that petitioner No.1 was residing with Sunil as his wife.
In these circumstances, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.
Petitioners would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them during trial.
However, no ground for interference by this Court is called for.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 11, 2013 anita