Criminal Misc. No.M-23466 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-23466 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.7.2012 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.[ENTITY], Addl.A.G.Haryana. Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent No.2. [ENTITY], J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing of FIR No.103 dated 25.6.2011 under [SECTION] [SECTION] [SECTION] of the [ACT] ([ACT] for short) registered at Police Station Julana District Jind (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant [ENTITY] was married to petitioner No.1 [ENTITY] on 10.11.2008. They were blessed with a daughter, who was aged about two years. The complainant has alleged that after few days of marriage, her husband and his family members started harassing her and raised a demand for more dowry. She was beaten many a times by her husband and his family members. A demand of ` 1,50,000/- in cash was raised by her in-laws and the said amount was handed over to her husband by her family with a view to settle the matrimonial dispute. However, the accused were greedy persons and thereafter, started raising a demand of ` 6,00,000/- from the complainant. Since the said demand could not be met, the complainant was residing with her parents along with her daughter for the last two years. The dowry articles given at the time of her marriage have been retained by the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioners No. 1 to 4.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner No.5 [ENTITY] is the brother of petitioner No.2 [ENTITY]. Petitioners No.6 and 7 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were the brothers of petitioner No.1 [ENTITY]. Petitioner No.9 [ENTITY] is the sister of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.8 [ENTITY] is the husband of petitioner No.9.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that petitioners No.5 to 9 were residing separately and general allegations had been levelled against them. Petitioner No.9 was married about nine years back and since then she was residing in her matrimonial home with petitioner No.8.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have submitted that petitioners No.5 to 9 had also been harassing the complainant in connivance with their co-accused and hence, the proceedings against them were liable to continue.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed qua petitioners No.5 to 9
In the case of [ENTITY] vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under [SECTION] or the inherent powers under [SECTION], [ACT] Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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] Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of [SECTION] of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no 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 Magistrate as contemplated under [SECTION] of the Code.
(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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." In [PRECEDENT], their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
A perusal of the FIR reveals that general allegations have been levelled against petitioners No.5 to 9. So far as petitioner No.9 is concerned, she is the married sister of the husband of the complainant and is residing in her matrimonial home with petitioner No.8. Petitioner No.5 is the brother of the father-in-law of the complainant and petitioners No.6 and 7 are the brothers of the husband of the complainant. The said petitioners are residing separately and they would not gain anything by demanding cash from the parents of the complainant. Even as per the FIR, ` 1,50,000/- were handed over to petitioner No.1 and not to petitioners No.5 to 9. It appears that they have been involved merely because of their relationship with the husband of the complainant. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband by the wife due to a matrimonial discord between them. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners No.5 to 9 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.103 dated 25.6.2011 under [SECTION] [SECTION] [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Police Station Julana District Jind (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners No.5 to 9, are quashed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE July 25, 2012 anita