CRM-M-32631-2015 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-32631-2015 (OM)
Date of decision:11.12.2018

Ajit Singh and another
…..Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and another
….Respondents

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

****
Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of Criminal Complaint No.307-1 dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure P-

3) filed under Section 379/380/356/382/392/411/457/506 of Indian Penal

Code and pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and

summoning order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide which the petitioners have been

summoned to face trial under Sections 379, 380, 356, 392 506 read with

Section 34 IPC. From the complaint (Annexure P-3), it is made out that

Tanu D/o accused No.1 2 i.e. present petitioners was married with

Digvijay S/o respondent No.2-Jatanpal Singh on 17.01.2013. It is alleged

1 of 4
06-01-2019 20:45:29 :::
CRM-M-32631-2015 (OM) 2

that on 05.07.2013, accused Nos.1 2 took away their daughter Tanu to

their house from the house of Digvijay Singh S/o Jatanpal Singh who was

residing at Delhi with an intention to falsly implicate the family of the

complainant. It comes out that the complainant is residing at Bhiwani and

the accused-petitioners are residing at Greater Nagar, District Gautam

Buddha Nagar (U.P.). It is alleged that FIR No.602/13 under Sections

498A, 323, 506, 376A 307 IPC, was got registered at Police Station

Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) against the complainant and

his family members. On 21.07.2013, accused No.1 called the complainant

on phone to Greater Nagar asking him to take Tanu back to their house.

When the complainant went to the house of the accused, they called the

police and got him arrested. He has admitted to bail on 12.08.2013.

It is further alleged that on 02.11.2013, at about 1.00PM when

complainant gone to the bank in Tehsil District Bhiwani, his wife

Mahesh Kumari was alone at home and then accused Nos.1 2 along with

5-6 persons entered the house of the complainant and started threatening

Mahesh Kumari-wife of the complainant and asked her to give jewellery

set, Kangan, one pair ear rings, one pair jhumki of ear, one pair thread and

needle set of ear, one pair jhala of ear, nath of nose, moti of nose, necklace,

chain of neck and two rings, otherwise they will kill her. Due to fear,

Mahesh Kumar-wife of the complainant opened the almirah and then

accused No.1 forcibly snatched the key of almirah from her and they took

away gold jewellery and they also took away jewellery belonging to the

complainant i.e. one gold chain weighing two tola, one gold necklace

2 of 4
06-01-2019 20:45:29 :::
CRM-M-32631-2015 (OM) 3

weighing four tola and cash Rs.47,000/-.

On the basis of said allegations, complaint was filed after the

learned Magistrate sought the report of the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Police submitted the report that complaint was false. However, after

considering the preliminary evidence of the report of police, Magistrate pass

summoning order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-5).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

file carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was a

matrimonial dispute. The daughter of the petitioners was married with

Digvijay Singh. There was a matrimonial discord on account of which, the

present petitioners lodged FIR against their son-in-law and family members.

To settle the score present occurrence has been cooked up by alleging that

the jewellery was forcibly taken away along with some jewellery items and

cash of the complainant. Counsel has also referred to the report under

Section 202 Cr.P.C. The police conducted the enquiry and found that the

present petitioners-accused Nos.1 2 had not come to the house of the

complainant and no threat was ever issued and their complaint is false.

Learned Magistrate ignored the said report.

I am of the view that the present petitioners belong to Greater

Nagar(UP) which adjoined to New Delhi. Petitioners belong to Bhiwani.

The gold articles of daughter of the present petitioner allegedly were lying

in the house of the complainant which were forcibly taken away. Already

matrimonial dispute was going on and a case under Sections 498A, 323,

3 of 4
06-01-2019 20:45:29 :::
CRM-M-32631-2015 (OM) 4

506, 376A and 307 IPC was got registered at Police Station Kasna, District

Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) against the complainant and his family

members. Therefore, it is unlikely that the accused will go to the house of

the complainant at Bhiwani to commit the robbery in this manner. The

present complaint appears to be counter blast to the case got registered

against the complainant and family members.

Accordingly, present complaint is nothing but misuse of process

of Court. The complaint on enquiry on the police found to be false. As

such Criminal Complaint No.307-1 dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) filed

under Section 379/380/356/382/392/411/457/506 of Indian Penal Code and

pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and summoning

order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bhiwani, are hereby quashed.

Petition is accordingly allowed.

(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
11.12.2018
anju rani
Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No

4 of 4
06-01-2019 20:45:29 :::