CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015
DATE OF DECISION :- January 19, 2018
State of Haryana and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for respondent no.2.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.
Police Station Panchkula, District Panchkula has been filed by petitioner
Beena against Smt. Bimla Devi arrayed as respondent no.2. Such respondent
had lodged F.I.R. in question against the petitioner. The crux of the F.I.R. is
that accused Beena was earlier married with Nand Kumar son of Mool
Chand resident of Rewari. The petitioner, who is woman of loose temper
and a very clever person had blackmailed Nand Kumar and took huge
amount from him and then divorced said Nand Kumar. She had contracted
the second marriage with son of complainant namely Anil Kumar on
2.2.2006, which was a very simple affair. No dowry was demanded or
accepted. The behaviour of accused became very bad and started quarreling
1 of 3
26-01-2018 02:54:42 :::
CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015 2
with the complainant and her husband over petty matters. She used to leave
the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Son of complainant had
filed a divorce petition, however, it was dismissed. Though appeal against
that is admitted in the High Court. Accused is demanding Rs. 5 lacs and half
share in the house which is yet to be constructed to divorce the son of
complainant. She has filed false F.I.R. No. 26 dated 16.9.2009 under
to blackmail the family of complainant. The case has been pending in the
Court of JMIC Panchkula.
According to the petitioner, her husband had filed a divorce
petition which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula and
appeal against that order is lying admitted before this Court. Petitioner had
Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula against the complainant, her son Anil
Kumar and her husband wherein Anil Kumar had been convicted by the trial
Court and the F.I.R. in question is a counter blast to the F.I.R. so lodged by
the petitioner just to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. The allegations
do not disclose admission of any offence, therefore, it be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the complainant and learned State counsel besides going through the
I find that no ground is made out to quash the F.I.R. in
question. A perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R. goes to show that they do
disclose cognizable offences. Merely due to the reason that civil and
criminal litigation has been there between the parties does not go to show
2 of 3
26-01-2018 02:54:43 :::
CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015 3
that the allegation in the F.I.R. are false or that the F.I.R. has been lodged as
a counter blast or that it is abuse of process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to authority N.
Venkata Rami Reddy versus The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam P.S.
2013(2) Andh LD (Criminal) 367 in support of her contentions that F.I.R.
should be quashed but that authority is not applicable due to different facts
Finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.
January 19, 2018
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
26-01-2018 02:54:43 :::