SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 July, 2018

CRM-M No. 7269 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 7269 of 2015
DATE OF DECISION :- July 16, 2018

Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal and another …Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
for Mr. Karan Singh Malik, Advocate for respondent no.2.

***

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.

has been filed by petitioners Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal and Sahab Singh

@ Deepak, both of them being accused in F.I.R. No. 568 dated 28.4.2014

for offences under Sections 498-A/323 IPC (Section 354 IPC deleted)

registered with Police Station Panipat City, Panipat.

Briefly stated the facts of the case as per prosecution story are

that complainant Mamta Rani w/o Sh. Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal D/o of

Late Sh. Jai Singh Verma resident of Moti Ram Colony, Near Mohit Public

School, House No. 2184, Noorwala, Panipat submitted a written complaint

addressed to SHO Police Station City Panipat interalia stating that she was

married with Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal on 15.11.2002 at Jind. After a

1 of 3
22-07-2018 00:11:34 :::
CRM-M No. 7269 of 2015 2

few days of marriage, her husband Rajbir @ Bhushan @ Vishal and

Brother-in-law Sahab singh @ Deepak started torturing him by raising

demands for dowry. Her parents fulfilled the demands once or twice but

were unable to meet the increasing demands. As such, her husband and

brother-in-law started torturing her that she had given birth to two

daughters. Her husband had threatened her that in case she did not bring

dowry he would not keep her and would contract a second marriage then he

eloped with a girl namely Neelu. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Sahab Singh

@ Deepak started sexually harassing her and tried to establish illicit

relations with her to which she did not agree as such she was turned out of

the matrimonial home with daughters and she is residing with her widowed

mother at Panipat. As the petitioners are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. on

the points that the complainant wanted that her brother-in-law Sahab Singh,

who want marry a girl of her choice and when she found that he was having

a love affair with a girl then she got annoyed and threatened the petitioners

of dire consequences. Petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3 had solemnized

marriage with the help of petitioner no. 1 but the complainant was not

happy with their marriage. The complainant wanted her husband to separate

from his family which he did not agreed.

Notice of petition had been given to the respondents, who put

in appearance. Respondent no.1 State of Haryana had filed a reply

contending therein that challan has since been filed against the accused. The

charge has been framed against them and out of five prosecution witnesses

two prosecution witnesses have been examined and petition be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

2 of 3
22-07-2018 00:11:35 :::
CRM-M No. 7269 of 2015 3

for the complainant and learned State counsel besides going through the

record, I find that no ground for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out. Both

the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. and the criminal acts

attributed to them go to show commission of cognizable offences. The very

fact that after completion of investigation they have been challaned, formal

charge had been framed against them and the trial is at advanced stage and

further that their guilt shall be determined during the trial make their request

for quashing of the F.I.R. to be untenable.

There is no ground to allow the petition for quashing the F.I.R.

along with ancillary proceedings including challan and subsequent

proceedings, therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
July 16, 2018
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
22-07-2018 00:11:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation