CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 21454 of 2015
DATE OF DECISION :- January 19, 2018

Beena …Petitioner

Versus

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.

No. 560 dated 16.12.2014 under Sections 323/341/506 IPC registered at

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

Sections 406 , 498A, 323, 506 IPC with Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula

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

filed F.I.R. No. 26 dated 16.2.2009 under Sections 406/498A/323/506 IPC

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

record.

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

and circumstances.

Finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
January 19, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
26-01-2018 02:54:43 :::