SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sheetal Bhat And Ors. vs Winner Raina And Anr. on 16 November, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRMC No.782/2017, IA No. 01/2017 c/w
CRMC No.783/2017, IA No. 01/2018
Date of order :16.11.2018
Sheetal Bhat and ors. vs Winner Raina and anr.
c/w connected matter
Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Partap Salathia, Advocate.
For respondent (s) : Mr. Ajay Vaid, Advocate.
i) Whether to be reported in
Digest/Journal : Yes/No.
ii) Whether approved for reporting
in Press/Media : Yes/No.

1. Through the instant two petitions filed under Section 561-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short Cr.P.C), the petitioners seek
quashing of complaints dated 23.03.2017 and 30.05.2017 filed by the
complainant-Winner Raina (Respondent No.1 herein) against them,
therefore, both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. In CRMC No. 782/2017, petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated
23.03.2017 titled Winner Raina vs. Sheetal Bhat and ors., filed against the
petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 427, 448, 506, 120-
B RPC and order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sub-
Registrar (JMIC) Jammu.

3. In CRMC No. 783/2017, petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated
30.05.2017 titled Winner Raina and anr. vs. Sheetal Bhat and ors., filed
against the petitioners for commission of offences under Section 500 RPC
and order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Registrar
(JMIC) Jammu.

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 1 of 13

4. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1995, the petitioner No.I
solemnized marriage with one Varinder Bhat at Faridabad, Haryana and
out of the said wed-lock petitioner no.3 was born. Unfortunately the
husband of the petitioner no.1 passed away in the year 2010 due to a Heart
Attack. In the year 2012 the respondent sent a friend request to petitioner
No.1 through social networking site i.e., Facebook, which was later on
accepted by the petitioner No.I. After coming to know everything about
the petitioner No.I including her lifestyle and source of income, by
inducement and allurement, the respondent-Winner Raina with a promise
to marry, started a relationship with petitioner No.1. It is stated that on
trust, belief and conviction, the petitioner No.1 devoted herself to
respondent and all his social, emotional and economic needs. The
respondent on the pretext of marriage and good quality life ahead, started
using the petitioner no.1 to fulfill his economic needs. Knowing fully well
that the petitioner No l had received heavy amount on the death of her
husband from his insurance claim, the respondent with a promise to return
the money, coerced the petitioner No.1 to transfer Rs.60,000 into his
account on the pretext that he wants to start business, thereafter
Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- were transferred into the account of
respondents for purchase of land at Samba, and so forth, transactions
amounting to Rs. 22-23 lacs in total stands already transferred into the
account of respondent. It is stated that in the month of February-March
2015, the petitioner No.I inquired about the property in which she has
invested. But the respondent was reluctant to answer and the petitioner
No.1 got suspicious about the conduct of the respondent and his intentions
towards her. The respondent induced the petitioner No.1 and by
misrepresentation of facts got executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney
dated 12.03.2015 executed in her favour relating to landed property of 10
Marlas of land comprising under Khewat No. 190 Min. Khata No. 878
Min and Khasra No.1104 situated at Village Katli, Tehsil Samba, falling

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 2 of 13
outside the limits of NAC/MC, in her favour, which she wanted to sell but
was shocked to know that the said property was not in existence. It is
stated that when the petitioner No.1 came to know about the hostile
conduct of the respondent that he is not willing to marry her and has been
continuously misusing her on the pretext of promise to marry, she was left
with no other option but to lodge an FIR No.436 dated 23.06.2016 for
commission of offences under Sections 376, 406, 420, 506 IPC with
Police Station Sector-7, Faridabad against respondent.

5. It is stated in the petitions that in order to escape the criminal proceedings
and financial liabilities, respondent agreed to marry petitioner No.1. On
the pretext of promise to marry her, respondent filed a petition under
Section 482 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure Code seeking
quashing of FIR No.436 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh which came to be registered as CRM-M 31957 of
2016 titled Winner Raina Versus State Anr. Thereafter, petitioner No.1
and respondent solemnized marriage on 19.10.2016 at Shiv Mandir,
Faridabad in presence of the family members of both the parties.
Thereafter, the respondent very cleverly made the petitioner No.I to
submit an affidavit in this regard before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and thus the said FIR was quashed by the said Hon’ble Court
in terms of its order dated 25.10.2016 on this ground. It is stated that the
sole ground on the basis of which the said FIR was quashed was the
solemnization of marriage between the petitioner No.I and respondent. It
is further stated that after passing of the order dated 25.10.2016 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the respondent cohabited
with the petitioner No.I at Faridabadand on the pretext of making
arrangements for wedding reception and for arranging a residential house
at Jammu, left the petitioner No.1’s company and came to Jammu.

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 3 of 13

Thereafter, petitioner No.1 tried to contact the respondent a lot, but could
not contact him because he had changed his contact numbers.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when petitioner
No.1 reached at Jammu in December 2016, she was shocked to discover
that the respondent refused to meet her at all and when she approached his
home, the respondent and his family demanded for Rs.10 Lac from her in
case she wants them to settle with respondent, to which she denied. On
this, respondent and his family gave her a beating and told her that they do
not accept her as his wife and daughter in law.

7. It is further contended that the petitioner No.1 made every possible
attempt to make respondent accept his responsibility as husband towards
her and a father to her daughter. She tried to contact respondent and make
him understand her unfortunate situation. It is stated that in order to
escape his matrimonial obligations and financial liabilities, the respondent
lodged a complaint dated 23.03.2017 against her before the Court of
leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which came to be transferred to
the Court of Learned Sub-Registrar, JMIC, Jammu. The learned Trial
Court in terms of its order dated 23.03.2017 took cognizance of the
complaint and proceeded against the petitioners without ascertaining the
truth of the allegations leveled in the complaint, which is based on false,
frivolous and concocted facts. It is stated that the alleged occurrences
relate to February 2017 and 06.03.2017, but the complaint was lodged on
23.03.2017 after a delay of more than 15 days, which is corroborative of
the fact that same is brain child of the respondent.

It is stated that petitioner No.1 has always tried her best to make her
relationship cordial with the respondent and tried to meet him and even
went to Srinagar looking for him but respondent totally denied to meet
her. When she was at Bus Stand, B C Road, Jammu on 20.04.2017, the
father of the respondent namely Sh. Chaman Lal misbehaved with her,

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 4 of 13
outraged her modesty and threatened her not to try and contact respondent
or else she will be eliminated. In this regard the petitioner No.I was left
with no option but to register an FIR against the Chaman Lal which came
to be registered as FIR No. 39/2017 dated 20.04.2017 for commission of
offences under Section 354 RPC by P/S Bus Stand, Jammu, and the same
is pending investigation. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 served a
legal notice dated 06/04/2017 upon the respondent for accepting her as his
wife and returning her money up to the tune of Rs.22 lacs along with
interest. It is further contended that petitioner No.1 has filed a petition
under 125 Central Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and an application
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act 2005, and the same are pending adjudication before the competent
Court of law at Faridabad.

8. The petitioners seek quashing of complaints dated 23.03.2017 and
30.05.2017 and impugned orders dated 23.03.2017 and 31.05.2017,
passed by the Court of learned Sub-Registrar (JMIC) Jammu on the
following grounds:

i) That a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, even if are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not, prima
facie, constitute any offence or makeout a case against the petitioners.

ii) That a bare perusal of annexures to the petition reveals that the
petitioner No. I has always tried her level best to maintain peace and
harmony between her and respondent and there is nothing
incriminating against the petitioners on records to connect them to the
omission of alleged offences in the complaint. Thus, the complaint and
orders passed is the petition is result of connivance between the
respondent and his family members, which has resulted into abuse of
process of law and the same deserves to be quashed out rightly.

iii) That it is not understandable as to how the learned Trial Court has
jumped to a conclusion that petitioners who are innocent persons,
despite the fact that they have not committed any offence are
surprisingly charged for alleged offences when there is nothing on
record to connect the petitioners even prima-facie to the commission of
alleged offences,.

iv) That the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are
manifestly instituted with an ulterior motive to malign the reputation of
the petitioners and falsely drag them in the field of litigation.

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 5 of 13
v) That the petitioner No 2 is a well-wisher of the petitioners No. 1 and 3,
petitioner No. 2 is daughter of petitioner No. 1.

The petitioner No 2 was not even present in Jammu when the
commission of the alleged offences took place, and this fact
corroborates that the complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant
is based on false baseless fact which deserves to be set aside.

vi) That the respondent has made allegations regarding criminal
intimidation against the petitioners in the complaint, whereas it is the
respondent who has been threatening the petitioners and blackmailing
them by mentally harassing each one of them. It is submitted that the
respondent has been stalking the petitioner No. 3 and mentally
agonizing her lot to pressurize the petitioner No. 1 to withdraw all
proceedings against him. He has been sending obnoxious and offensive
messages from his fake profile on Social networking site Facebook to
friends of the petitioner No.3 also. Relevant print outs are enclosed as
Annexure-R.

vii) That there is a delay of more than 15 days in moving the Trial Court
for lodging of the impugned complaint, which is evident of the fact that
the same is brain child of the respondent, thus, the same deserves to be
quashed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both
the petitions.

10. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon
a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 AIR (SC)
1758, in case titled Priyanka Srivastava and anr. vs. State of U.P. and
ors.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in case titled, State of
Bihar vs. Rajendra Agarwalla, reported in JT 1996 (1) 601 wherein it
held that power under section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly;
and 2011 (3) SCC 496 in case titled Mona Panwar vs. High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad and ors, wherein appellant who was member of
judicial service passed order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and High Court
set it aside and passed some stricture against officer and the Apex Court
set it aside.

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 6 of 13

12. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the law on the
subject.

13. In AIR 2017 SC in case titled The State of Telangana vs Habib
Abdullah Jeelani Ors., on 6 January, 2017, the Apex Court has held as
under:-

“11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution
for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 7 of 13

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said
parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations
where court’s inherent power can be exercised.

12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a
matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution
and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid
down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power
under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state
that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts
an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.”

14. Applying the above principle of law, I am of considered opinion that both
the complaints have been lodged by complainant against accused, in order
to spite them due to private and personal grudge. Respondent is
admittedly husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.3 though
she has been born out from previous marriage of petitioner no.1; marriage
between petitioner No.1 and respondent has been performed on
19/10/2016 at Faridabad; prior to marriage an FIR No.436 u/s
376/420/406/506 RPC was lodged by petitioner no.1 against respondent
on 23/6/2017; thereafter a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before Punjab
Haryana High Court for quashing FIR No.436 on account of
compromise and the same was allowed; one FIR no.39/2017 u/s 354 RPC
against father of complainant lodged by petitioner no.1 before P/S Bus

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 8 of 13
Stand, Jammu, is pending; matrimonial disputes are pending between
petitioners no.1 3 and respondent (complainant); one case under
section 12 of D.V. Act filed by petitioner nos.1 and 3 against respondent
is pending before competent court at Faridabad; one case under section
125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner nos.1 and 3 against respondent
and is pending before competent court at Faridabad.

15. From the perusal of complaint bearing no.196/Complaint; D.O.I.-

23.03.2017 u/s 427/448/506/120-B RPC would reveal that complainant
has stated therein:

“6. That the height of the criminality was reached went on
15.02.2017 all the accused came to Jammu along with some
musclemen criminals, unknown to the Complainant and
criminally trespass out of the Complainant. The parents of the
Complainant offered them a glass of water but they became
furiated and furled the glass of water on the head of the uncle of
the Complainant Sh. Rattan Lal Raina. Fortunately he did not
receive serious injury. The parents of the Complainant tried to
pacify the accused and offered them tea, but all the accused
threw tea cups, cattle on the windows panes of the windows of
the house which broke the window glass of the windows. Upon
this the neighbors of the Complainant gathered on spot and
started placating the accused persons and was great persuasion
they left the house of the Complainant. While the accused no.1
was breaking the windows glass, she also hurt herself and
received hurt on her hand.

7. That the accused criminally trespass of the Complainant and
caused damage to the property of the Complainant. Aggrieved
thereof, the father of the Complainant lodged a complaint of
this episode to the police station Chinore, but no action was
taken by the police. The accused on next day also sent some
criminal musclemen to the house of the Complainant for
causing him physical harm but fortunately the Complainant was
not present, therefore they left the house threatening that in case
the Complainant does not fulfill the demands of the accused
no.1 they will physically eliminate the complainant.

8. That again on 6.3.2017 all the accused along with some
unknown criminals came to the house of the Complainant but
fortunately at that time, the then Corporator Smt. Sheela Hando
was present in the house of the Complainant along with her

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 9 of 13
PSO. When the accused and their musclemen saw the PSO
Wielding a gun, they left the house of the Complainant and
went to police station Chinore and influence the police through
some Senior Officers and pressurize the police
to illegally recover some amount from the Complainant. The
Complainant was summoned in the police station and told the
police authorities that accused are pressurizing and
blackmailing the Complainant and he has no legal liability to
pay to the accused no.1. The complainant explained in the
police station, that accused no.1 wanted to purchase a plot of
land at Jammu and the Complainant introduced her with a land
owner. The accused no.1 transacted with the landowner for
purchasing of the land but was cheated by the land owner Sh.
Rajan Dutta. The accused no.1 is demanding amount which has
been duped due to the cheating by Sh. Rajan Dutta from the
Complainant unwarrantedly. Thereupon, the police refuse to
become a party to the illegal design of the accused persons and
told the accused that father of the Complainant has already
lodged a complaint with respect to the occurrence of
15.02.2017, whereupon they left police station as well.”

In this case occurrences have been shown of 15.02.2017 and
06.03.2017.

16. Similarly in another complaint bearing No.23-A/Complaint; D.O.I.-

30.05.2017 u/s 500 RPC would reveal that complainant has stated therein:

“6. That the height of the criminality was reached went on
15.02.2017 all the accused came to Jammu along with some
musclemen criminals, unknown to the Complainant no.1 and
criminally trespass out of the Complainant no.1. The parents of
the Complainant no.1 offered them a glass of water but they
became furiated and furled the glass of water on the head of the
uncle of the Complainant no.1 Sh. Rattan Lal Raina.
Fortunately he did not receive serious injury. The parents of the
Complainant no.1 tried to pacify the accused and offered them
tea, but all the accused threw tea cups, cattle on the windows
panes of the windows of the house which broke the window
glass of the windows. Upon this the neighbors of the
Complainant no.1 gathered on spot and started placating the
accused persons and was great persuasion they left the house of
the Complainant no.1. While the accused no.1 was breaking the

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 10 of 13
windows glass, she also hurt herself and received hurt on her
hand.

7. That the accused criminally trespass of the Complainant no.1
and caused damage to the property of the Complainant no.2.
Aggrieved thereof, Complainant no.2 as well as father of
complainant no.1 lodged a complaint of this episode to the
police station Chinore, but no action was taken by the police.
The accused on next day also sent some criminal musclemen to
the house of the Complainant no.1 for causing him physical
harm, but fortunately the Complainant no.1 was not present,
therefore, they left the house threatening that in case the
Complainant no.1 does not fulfill the demands of the accused
no.1 they will physically eliminate the Complainant no.1.

8. That again on 6.3.2017 all the accused along with some
unknown criminals came to the house of the Complainant no.1
but fortunately at that time, the then corporator Smt. Sheela
Hando was present in the house of the Complainant no.1
alongwith her PSO. When the accused and their musclemen
saw the PSO Wielding a gun, they left the house of the
Complainant no.1 and went to police station Chinore and
influence the police through some Senior Officers and
pressurize the police to illegally recover some amount from the
Complainant no.1. The Complainant no.1 was summoned in the
police station and told the police authorities that accused are
pressurizing and blackmailing the Complainant no.1 and he has
no legal liability to pay to the accused no.1. The complainant
no.1 explained in the police station, that accused no.1 wanted to
purchase a plot of land at Jammu and the Complainant no.1
introduced her with a land owner. The accused no.1 transacted
with the land owner for purchasing of the land but was cheated
by the land owner Sh. Rajan Dutta. The accused no.1 is
demanding amount which has been duped due to the cheating
by Sh. Rajan Dutta from the Complainant no.1 unwarrantedly.
Thereupon, the police refuse to become a party to the illegal
design of the accused persons and told the accused that father of
the Complainant no.1 has already lodged a complaint with
respect to the occurrence of 15.2.2017, whereupon they left
police station as well.

9. That the aforesaid atrocities were not sufficient at the behest
of accused. The accused have further committed offence of
defamation by maligning the reputation of the complainant no.1
by written imputations, messages on social media and verbal

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 11 of 13
imputations. The spree of defaming the complainant no.1 and
their family had started since last year. The complainant no.1
initially bear all the atrocities of the accused persons but now
the height has been crossed.

10. That the accused committed offence of defamation firstly
when by the written imputations of the accused person. The
marriage of the complainant no.1 was got broken by the
accused person. It is relevant to mention herein that the accused
no.1 forged and fabricated an affidavit 13.7.2015 of the
complainant no.1 wherein it was stated that complainant no.1
has solemnized marriage with the accused no.1. The said
affidavit does not bear the genuine signatures of the
complainant no.1 and have been forged by the accused no. 1.
The photographs pasted on the said affidavits has been cropped
by the accused no.1. Copy of the affidavit attested on 13.7.2015
is annexed herewith. On the same date the accused no 1 also
executed an affidavit stating therein that she has married with
the complainant no.1 on 10.5.2015. Copy of the affidavit is
annexed herewith. When the accused persons came to know
about the fixation of marriage of the complainant no.1 in the
month of 28.11.2016 and the arrangement for marriage was
made by making advance payment to the banquet hall and
caterer. The accused with malafide intention and criminal intent
posted the aforesaid affidavits to the relatives of the
complainants and prospective in-laws of the complainant no.1.
When the relatives and the prospective in-laws of the
complainant no.1 came to know about the said affidavits they
started enquiring about the said marriage and genuineness of
the affidavits from the complainants. The complainants faced
grave defamation, impairment of their reputation, agony and
harassment while making explanations that the affidavit is
fabricated and factum of marriage is also false. Not only the
aforesaid acts of criminal intent, the accused also started
defaming the complainants by making telephone calls to the
relatives of the complainants and prospective in-laws of the
complainant no.1 that the complainant no. 1 is already married
and he is out to solemnize another marriage and branded the
complainants as criminal thus defaming them the accused have
telephonically and through social media defamed by aforesaid
imputations before Shagun Raina W/o Kiran Raina R/o Muthi,
Rattan Lal Raina S/o Govind Ram Raina R/o Durga Nagar and
many others. Eventually the marriage of the complainant no.1

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 12 of 13
was broken and this was very serious defamation of
complainant and his entire family.”

17. From bare perusal of both these complaints it is evident that these
complaints contain same facts except offences. The Attendance-Sheet of
petitioner no.3 clearly reveals that from 13-18 February, 2017 and from
1st March to 10th March, 2017, she was at Mumbai, in the Deptt. of
Chemical Engineering , D.J. Sanghvi College of Engineering, Vile Parle (
Annexure J). There is delay of 15 days in lodging complaint no.196 and
there is delay of about 3 months in lodging another complaint.

18. In both the complaints there is no averments that complainant has ever
filed any complaint in terms of section 154 clauses 1 and 3 of Cr.P.C.,
which is mandatory as held in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs.
State of U.P. Ors., AIR 2015 1758. The laws cited by counsel for
respondent is not applicable in present set of circumstances.

19. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of considered opinion that
both complaints have been filed with mala fide intention and instituted
maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.
The contents of complaints are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

20. Hence both the complaints as well as process issued against the petitioners
are quashed. These petitions stand allowed accordingly

(Sanjay Kumar Gupta)
Judge
Jammu
16.11.2018
Bir

CRMC Nos.782/2017 783/2017 Page 13 of 13

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