Mahender Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1160061
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-17-2014
AppellantMahender
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
118 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-19295 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: july 17, 2014 mahender ...petitioner versus state of haryana and others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present: mr.r.k.arya, advocate for the petitioner. **** inderjit singh, j. petitioner mahender has filed this petition against state of haryana and other respondents under section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing of order dated 18.04.2011 passed by learned sdjm, ganaur and judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by learned addl. sessions judge, sonipat. the brief facts as stated in the petition are that respondent no.2 suman with the conspiracy performed second marriage on 03.07.2003 with the deceased ashok kumar by concealing her firs.marriage with one yashvir singh. respondent no.2 lodged fir against ashok kumar under sections 498-a, 406 and 323 ipc. it is further stated in the petition that after six months of the marriage, ashok kumar broke up the matrimonial alliance and respondent no.2 vineet gulati201408.07 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-19295 of 2014 -2- frequently rounded the house of ashok kumar along with respondents no.3 and 4 and started pressuring deceased ashok kumar and his family to transfer property in her name. it is also stated in the petition that sultan singh, father of ashok kumar, lodged a complaint on account of the injuries suffered by him at the hands of accused/private respondents. it is further stated that accused/private respondents in connivance with each other, entered the house of ashok kumar and harassed and abetted him to commit suicide. respondent no.2 suman cleverly lodged a false fir against the petitioner and his two sons, in which after a prolong trial, the petitioner and his sons have been acquitted. i have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. firs.of all, the complaint was dismissed by the learned sdjm, ganaur vide order dated 18.04.2011, which is annexure p-11. then the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned addl. sessions judge, sonipat. now, filing of the present petition under section 482 cr.p.c.amounts to second revision, which is not permissible as per law. secondly, even on merit, it is clear from the record that respondent no.2 suman has got registered the fir against the present petitioner and others under section 306 ipc for the death of ashok kumar, husband of suman and in that case, petitioner and others have been acquitted. in the quashing petition, the petitioner is to show the illegality committed by the courts below while passing the judgments. the findings of the courts below are vineet gulati201408.07 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-19295 of 2014 -3- consistent by holding that complainant and his witnesses are interested witnesses, who are themselves facing criminal trial at the instance of suman, who is legally wedded wife of deceased ashok kumar. the courts below also held that there is no specific attribution proved, how and in what manner accused abetted deceased ashok to commit suicide. it is also in the order passed by learned sdjm, ganaur that no other family member of ashok has filed any complaint against the present respondent suman for pressurizing upon the deceased ashok kumar. learned sdjm, ganaur, from the record, has reached to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to summon the accused for trial for commission of offence under section 306 ipc read with section 120-b ipc, specifically when complainant himself and others are facing trial as per fir no.71 dated 06.03.2010 under section 306 ipc. the averments in the complaint that father of ashok kumar died due to injury caused by private respondents also not substantiated by any evidence. even the copy of mlr placed on record regarding injuries shows complaint of pain and abrasions only, which are also not on vital part of the body rather on left arm and thumb. even, from the documents on record, it is written that ddr got registered by sultan singh was withdrawn on the basis of panchayati compromise in the year 2009, much earlier to the present occurrence. otherwise also, no proceedings have been launched in any way regarding the death of sultan singh. so, all these facts cannot be believed. in view of the above, i find that the findings of both the vineet gulati201408.07 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-19295 of 2014 -4- courts below are as per law and do not require any interference from this court and therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. july 17, 2014 (inderjit singh) vgulati judge vineet gulati201408.07 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-19295 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: July 17, 2014 Mahender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner Mahender has filed this petition against State of Haryana and other respondents under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of order dated 18.04.2011 passed by learned SDJM, Ganaur and judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Sonipat.

The brief facts as stated in the petition are that respondent No.2 Suman with the conspiracy performed second marriage on 03.07.2003 with the deceased Ashok Kumar by concealing her fiRs.marriage with one Yashvir Singh.

Respondent No.2 lodged FIR against Ashok Kumar under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

It is further stated in the petition that after six months of the marriage, Ashok Kumar broke up the matrimonial alliance and respondent No.2 VINEET GULATI201408.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-19295 of 2014 -2- frequently rounded the house of Ashok Kumar along with respondents No.3 and 4 and started pressuring deceased Ashok Kumar and his family to transfer property in her name.

It is also stated in the petition that Sultan Singh, father of Ashok Kumar, lodged a complaint on account of the injuries suffered by him at the hands of accused/private respondents.

It is further stated that accused/private respondents in connivance with each other, entered the house of Ashok Kumar and harassed and abetted him to commit suicide.

Respondent No.2 Suman cleverly lodged a false FIR against the petitioner and his two sons, in which after a prolong trial, the petitioner and his sons have been acquitted.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

FiRs.of all, the complaint was dismissed by the learned SDJM, Ganaur vide order dated 18.04.2011, which is Annexure P-11.

Then the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Sonipat.

Now, filing of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.amounts to second revision, which is not permissible as per law.

Secondly, even on merit, it is clear from the record that respondent No.2 Suman has got registered the FIR against the present petitioner and others under Section 306 IPC for the death of Ashok Kumar, husband of Suman and in that case, petitioner and others have been acquitted.

In the quashing petition, the petitioner is to show the illegality committed by the Courts below while passing the judgments.

The findings of the Courts below are VINEET GULATI201408.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-19295 of 2014 -3- consistent by holding that complainant and his witnesses are interested witnesses, who are themselves facing criminal trial at the instance of Suman, who is legally wedded wife of deceased Ashok Kumar.

The Courts below also held that there is no specific attribution proved, how and in what manner accused abetted deceased Ashok to commit suicide.

It is also in the order passed by learned SDJM, Ganaur that no other family member of Ashok has filed any complaint against the present respondent Suman for pressurizing upon the deceased Ashok Kumar.

Learned SDJM, Ganaur, from the record, has reached to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to summon the accused for trial for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, specifically when complainant himself and others are facing trial as per FIR No.71 dated 06.03.2010 under Section 306 IPC.

The averments in the complaint that father of Ashok Kumar died due to injury caused by private respondents also not substantiated by any evidence.

Even the copy of MLR placed on record regarding injuries shows complaint of pain and abrasions only, which are also not on vital part of the body rather on left arm and thumb.

Even, from the documents on record, it is written that DDR got registered by Sultan Singh was withdrawn on the basis of panchayati compromise in the year 2009, much earlier to the present occurrence.

Otherwise also, no proceedings have been launched in any way regarding the death of Sultan Singh.

So, all these facts cannot be believed.

In view of the above, I find that the findings of both the VINEET GULATI201408.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-19295 of 2014 -4- Courts below are as per law and do not require any interference from this Court and therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

July 17, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI201408.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh