IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.42216-M of 2004
Date of decision : 17.5.2006
Amarjit Singh & others ….. Petitioners
The State of Punjab & another….Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms.Sonia Dhillon, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR bearing No.475 dated 23.8.2001 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under the provisions of Section 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 while the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.4 and 5 are the elder brothers of petitioner No.1.
The marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed in the year 1992 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The respondent No.2 is alleged to have abandoned the matrimonial home in the year 1994. The respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR on 23.8.2001 in which he has alleged as follows : “…….The said Amarjit Singh in connivance with the above mentioned persons have misappropriated my dowry articles and have shared those articles amongst themselves.
Besides this they also demanded Rs.20,000/- in cash and this demand could not be fulfilled by my parents and due to these reasons I have ousted by them from their house.
My father Rajinder Singh has went number of times alongwith a Panchayat and has made considerable expenditure on this. But the above mentioned persons sent us by him after threatening and abusing us due to which I and my parents are without any hope. My father has seen that at present not a single dowry article is there in their house and we have come to know from some of our friends that the articles of dowry have been misappropriated by the above mentioned persons…”
A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations are totally vague and do not disclose the commission of any offence. Apart from this, the respondent No.2 has levelled allegations after a lapse of nine years of the marriage without disclosing any particulars in the FIR.
The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have history of litigation between them as the petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint against respondent No.2 under Section 494 IPC in which he had alleged that respondent No.2 was earlier married to one Jaspal Singh son of Gurbax Singh and this fact was not disclosed to him at the time of marriage.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR is a counter blast to the complaint which he has made under Section 494 IPC.
Be that as it may, a perusal of the FIR shows that it is vague and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. In view of this no purpose will be served if the proceedings are permitted to continue in pursuance to the FIR as it is unlikely to result in the conviction of any of the petitioners.
The FIR also seems to be an abuse of the process of law as the allegations have been levelled after nine years of the marriage and that too in the circumstances where respondent No.2 is alleged to have abandoned her matrimonial home in the year 1994.
Consequently, I allow this petition and quash the FIR bearing No.475 dated 23.8.2001 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under the provisions of Sections 406/498A IPC and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
May 17, 2006 (MAHESH GROVER)