CRM-M-24710-2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
249 CRM-M-24710-2017 OM)
Date of decision:27.09.2018
Gurpreet Kaur and others
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
Present: Mr.Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. (ORAL)
In the present petition, petitioners have sought for quashing of
complaint No. 166/1/15 dated 10.12.2015, summoning order dated
18.01.2017 and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom. Allegations
are relating to quarrel among the family members that too in respect of
matrimonial dispute like taking away household articles etc.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that
Ist petitioner’s husband filed an application for taking action but due to
inaction on the part of police authority he moved CRM-M-30327 of 2015
and it was dismissed as withdrawn. He had suffered order. In order to over
come the order dated 12.10.2015 passed in CRM-M-30327-2015 complaint
has been filed. Present complaint is the counter blast to FIR No. 18 dated
12.09.2015 under Sections 498A, 406 IPC in which petitioner No.1 is
complainant. It is only to pressurise the petitioners.
1 of 2
07-10-2018 03:37:21 :::
CRM-M-24710-2017 (OM) 2
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that perusal of the order dated 12.10.2015 read with complaint
there is no hurdle in respect of filing complaint against the petitioners. It is
further submitted that there is serious allegations against the petitioners and
the trial court passed the summoning order after examination of witnesses
and record where is clear evidence with regard to petitioners conduct i.e.
CCTV Photographs. So, there is no ground to interfere with the trial court
order and complaint. Supreme Court in latest decisions titled as Manish
Teegal and others Versus State of M.P. and another reported in 2018 (1)
(Criminal Law Journal) 348 read with Kamlesh Kumari and others versus
State of U.P. and another reported in 2015 AIR (SCW) 3700 held that if
serious allegation and sufficient evidence are available constituting offence,
court shall not entertain to quashing of complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Thus, petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, petition stands
27.09.2018 ( P.B.BAJANTHRI )
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasons Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
07-10-2018 03:37:21 :::