Parmila Devi Alias Majhli Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1159010
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-07-2014
AppellantParmila Devi Alias Majhli
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
259 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-4234 of 2014 date of decision: july 07, 2014 parmila devi alias majhli ...petitioner versus state of haryana and another ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.amit jaiswal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.anil kumar malik, deputy advocate general, haryana for the respondent-state. ms.sukhpreet kaur, advocate for respondent no.2. **** inderjit singh, j. petitioner parmila devi alias majhli has filed this petition against state of haryana and meenakshi respondents under section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing of fir no.542 dated 24.10.2013 under sections 323, 406, 498-a and 506 ipc registered at police station baldev nagar, district ambala and subsequent proceedings arising out from the above-said fir. it is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner has been falsely involved by respondent no.2. no offence as alleged in the fir is made out against the petitioner. it is further stated that respondent no.2 frustrated with her estranged marriage with her husband, has got registered the above referred false case with false and concocted allegations against the petitioner. the petitioner is married sister-in- law of respondent no.2, who was married much prior to the marriage vineet gulati201408.01 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-4234 of 2014 -2- of respondent no.2 and is settled in her matrimonial home with her husband. she has nothing to do with the dispute between respondent no.2 and her husband rajesh chaudhary. it is also stated in the petition that fir is abuse of process of the law and result of misuse of powers vested in the police. notice was given to the respondents, who appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate replies. in the reply filed by the state, it is stated that fir was registered on the complaint of respondent no.2 against three accused namely petitioner and two others as ordered by the illaqa magistrate under section 156(3) cr.p.c.during the independent and impartial investigation, the allegations as per fir, had been found to be correct, so on completion of investigation, challan against them has been filed before illaqa magistrate for trial according to law. in the reply filed by respondent no.2, it is stated that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding causing cruelty and harassment to the answering respondent. it is also stated that present petitioner/nand is the whole trouble creator and main root cause behind the hostile relations of answering respondent with her husband rajesh chaudhary. the answering respondent cohabited with her husband after marriage in the house of the petitioner, since the answering respondent's husband was residing with the petitioner and her husband for last several years.the allegations regarding giving beatings on demand of dowry are also stated in the reply. it is further stated in the reply that when the respondent no.2 visited her vineet gulati201408.01 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-4234 of 2014 -3- matrimonial house, the present petitioner and her husband did not allow her to enter the house. they refused to return back the dowry articles also and the matter was reported to gram sahayak smt.sumitra devi. it was petitioner and other co-accused who refused to rehabilitate the answering respondent until and unless their demands for more dowry are not fulfilled. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned state counsel. from the record, it is clear that father-in-law and mother- in-law of respondent no.2 had already died. it is argued by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that husband of respondent no.2 namely rajesh chaudhary was residing for the last several years with the present petitioner and respondent no.2 and her husband, after the marriage, resided with petitioner and her husband (petitioner's husband) in their house. as per the allegations, demand of dowry and harassment etc.are also attributed to present petitioner and petitioner's husband and husband of respondent no.2. at the time of argument, it is also argued by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that dowry articles were recovered from the petitioner's house. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, i find that at this stage, there is nothing to hold that the allegations levelled by respondent no.2 are false nor it can be held that petitioner in no way is interested in the dowry articles and not a beneficiary on the ground of married sister-in-law, as respondent no.2 and her husband resided with present petitioner and petitioner's vineet gulati201408.01 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-4234 of 2014 -4- husband in their house after the marriage as matrimonial house and specific allegations are levelled regarding demand of dowry, harassment etc.all these facts are to be determined by the court on the basis of evidence. the fact that dowry articles were stated to be recovered from the petitioner's house also shows that it cannot be held at this stage that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and are without any basis. learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments passed in geeta mehrotra and another versus state of u.p.and another, 2012 (4) r.c.r.(criminal) 812, manjit kaur versus sukhwinder kaur, 2011 (6) r.c.r.(criminal) 1022, rakesh kumar and others versus state of punjab and others.2009 (2) r.c.r.(criminal) 565 and tarsem kaur and another versus state of haryana and another, 2012 (4) law herald (punjab and haryana) 3170. i have gone through all the cited judgments and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in the case in hand parents-in-law of respondent no.2 had already died and respondent no.2 along with her husband resided with the present petitioner in her house for about forty days after her marriage and that house was matrimonial house of respondent no.2 and she was not allowed to rehabilitate as per allegations. therefore, from the above discussion, i do not find any merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. july 07, 2014 (inderjit singh) vgulati judge vineet gulati201408.01 16:37 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-4234 of 2014 Date of decision: July 07, 2014 Parmila Devi alias Majhli ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Anil Kumar Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner Parmila Devi alias Majhli has filed this petition against State of Haryana and Meenakshi respondents under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of FIR No.542 dated 24.10.2013 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala and subsequent proceedings arising out from the above-said FIR.

It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner has been falsely involved by respondent No.2.

No offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioner.

It is further stated that respondent No.2 frustrated with her estranged marriage with her husband, has got registered the above referred false case with false and concocted allegations against the petitioner.

The petitioner is married sister-in- law of respondent No.2, who was married much prior to the marriage VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-4234 of 2014 -2- of respondent No.2 and is settled in her matrimonial home with her husband.

She has nothing to do with the dispute between respondent No.2 and her husband Rajesh Chaudhary.

It is also stated in the petition that FIR is abuse of process of the law and result of misuse of powers vested in the police.

Notice was given to the respondents, who appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate replies.

In the reply filed by the State, it is stated that FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 against three accused namely petitioner and two others as ordered by the Illaqa Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.During the independent and impartial investigation, the allegations as per FIR, had been found to be correct, so on completion of investigation, challan against them has been filed before Illaqa Magistrate for trial according to law.

In the reply filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding causing cruelty and harassment to the answering respondent.

It is also stated that present petitioner/Nand is the whole trouble creator and main root cause behind the hostile relations of answering respondent with her husband Rajesh Chaudhary.

The answering respondent cohabited with her husband after marriage in the house of the petitioner, since the answering respondent's husband was residing with the petitioner and her husband for last several yeaRs.The allegations regarding giving beatings on demand of dowry are also stated in the reply.

It is further stated in the reply that when the respondent No.2 visited her VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-4234 of 2014 -3- matrimonial house, the present petitioner and her husband did not allow her to enter the house.

They refused to return back the dowry articles also and the matter was reported to Gram Sahayak Smt.Sumitra Devi.

It was petitioner and other co-accused who refused to rehabilitate the answering respondent until and unless their demands for more dowry are not fulfilled.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel.

From the record, it is clear that father-in-law and mother- in-law of respondent No.2 had already died.

It is argued by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that husband of respondent No.2 namely Rajesh Chaudhary was residing for the last several years with the present petitioner and respondent No.2 and her husband, after the marriage, resided with petitioner and her husband (petitioner's husband) in their house.

As per the allegations, demand of dowry and harassment etc.are also attributed to present petitioner and petitioner's husband and husband of respondent No.2.

At the time of argument, it is also argued by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that dowry articles were recovered from the petitioner's house.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that at this stage, there is nothing to hold that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are false nor it can be held that petitioner in no way is interested in the dowry articles and not a beneficiary on the ground of married sister-in-law, as respondent No.2 and her husband resided with present petitioner and petitioner's VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-4234 of 2014 -4- husband in their house after the marriage as matrimonial house and specific allegations are levelled regarding demand of dowry, harassment etc.All these facts are to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence.

The fact that dowry articles were stated to be recovered from the petitioner's house also shows that it cannot be held at this stage that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and are without any basis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments passed in Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of U.P.and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 812, Manjit Kaur versus Sukhwinder Kaur, 2011 (6) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1022, Rakesh Kumar and others versus State of Punjab and otheRs.2009 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 565 and Tarsem Kaur and another versus State of Haryana and another, 2012 (4) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 3170.

I have gone through all the cited judgments and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in the case in hand parents-in-law of respondent No.2 had already died and respondent No.2 along with her husband resided with the present petitioner in her house for about forty days after her marriage and that house was matrimonial house of respondent No.2 and she was not allowed to rehabilitate as per allegations.

Therefore, from the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

July 07, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh