CRM-M-8604-2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8604-2011 Date of decision : 04.03.2014 Mrs.Anukriti Aggarwal ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been filed for quashing of FIR No.23 dated 04.03.2009 for offence punishable under Sections 452, 380, 506, 323, 406 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered in Police Station E Division, District Amritsar and proceedings emanating therefrom.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of complainant Surinder Aggarwal (respondent No.2 herein) and she lodged FIR No.116 dated 12.06.2002 in Police Station Division No.8 for offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC but the dispute was compromised and the petition for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No.2 was allowed by order dated November 11, 2003 passed in Crl.Misc.No.41665-M of 2002.
In 2004, Soon after the disposal of the Davinder Kumar 2014.03.10 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8604-2011 2 aforesaid petition, Surinder Aggarwal filed a civil suit in the Court at Delhi seeking injunction regarding a flat and in those proceedings, the petitioner was persuaded to make a statement in pursuance of conspiracy between her husband and his father.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner in the year 2008 filed a complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act') against her parents in-law and others which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Amritsar.
It is argued with vehemence that as per allegations set out in the FIR lodged falsely by the complainant against the petitioner and her husband, the shop in question with materials (stock) allegedly lying therein, was entrusted by the complainant to his son but he has levelled false allegations against the petitioner making her jointly liable for alleged misappropriation of those stocks by her husband as the petitioner earlier initiated criminal proceedings in the year 2002 and later filed a petition under the Act.
It is further argued that though in the FIR at certain places, the complainant has made reference to his daughter-in-law, the present petitioner but perusal of the FIR as a whole and in between the lines would make it manifest that the name of the petitioner has been dragged with an ulterior motive as the complainant does not have cordial relations with his son (husband of the petitioner).It is further argued that as per allegations of the complainant, he himself handed over possession of the shop and entrusted the materials to Vishal Aggarwal and in case he (Vishal Aggarwal) has misappropriated those articles as alleged, the allegations, at best, make out a case under Section 406 IPC against Vishal Aggarwal but the FIR has been lodged even for offence under Sections 452, 380 IPC in regard to Davinder Kumar 2014.03.10 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8604-2011 3 criminal trespass and committing theft and for offence under Sections 506, 323 IPC attributed against Vishal Aggarwal only.
The last submission made by counsel is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the behest of her father-in-law are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.
Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that on completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted in the Court and the learned trial Court has already framed charge against the accused including the petitioner.
It is further argued that the allegations levelled against the accused are liable to be tested during trial and there is no ground to scuttle the prosecution at threshold.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
There is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of complainant Surinder Aggarwal and she lodged an FIR against the complainant and his family members for offence under Sections 406, 498A IPC in the year 2002 and the matter was settled between the parties by way of compromise.
In the year 2004, Surinder Aggarwal filed a civil suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction, possession, mesne profits/damages against the petitioner and her husband and in those proceedings, the petitioner and her husband made statements Annexure P2.
The petitioner has initiated proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act arraigning her parents in-law along with Vinay Goel and Seema Goel as respondents which are statedly pending in the Court.
The facts and documents on record make it manifest that the complainant is not maintaining cordial relations with his son and daughter-in-law and the Davinder Kumar 2014.03.10 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8604-2011 4 parties are litigating since the year 2002.
A plain reading of the allegations set up in the FIR would reveal that the grievance of the complainant is that he allegedly handed over his shop to his son, paying salary to him and he (complainant) started the business at Delhi as he did not have cordial relations with his son and daughter-in-law.
He further states that in the shop, there was stock of Rs.40 lacs including gas cylinders and chemicals and he came to know that his son and daughter-in-law have misappropriated the entire stock.
When he inquired about the same from his son telephonically, he (son) threatened to kill him in case he visits the shop.
The complainant on his visit to Amritsar on 08.01.2009 went to the shop and found the material missing and on inquiry from his son, the complainant was pushed out of the shop and extended threats to kill him.
He further states that his son has misappropriated goods worth Rs.40 lacs, insulted him in the presence of public and threatened to kill him.
The manner and sequence of events narrated by the complainant in the FIR shows that primarily the grievance of the complainant is against his son Vishal Aggarwal but at one or two places he has also referred to the petitioner.
Further, I find force in the contention that no case is made out against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and she has been indicted in the crime because of dispute between her father-in- law on one hand and her husband on the other and more so that the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Act.
I am well alive that the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot embark upon an inquiry to find out truth or falsity of the allegations levelled, but at Davinder Kumar 2014.03.10 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-8604-2011 5 the same time, keeping in view the background of the case and averments set up in the FIR, in my considered opinion, it would be unfair to compel the petitioner to face rigmarole of criminal proceedings.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed, FIR No.23 dated 04.03.2009 registered in Police Station E Division, Amritsar City for offence under Sections 452, 380, 506, 323, 406 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.
Any observations made hereinabove would be confined to disposal of the present petition and would not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controveRs.qua other accused.
No order as to costs.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE March 04, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.03.10 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document