Crl. Misc. No. M-15776 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-15776 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.7.2011. Ganesh Raj and another .......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing of the complaint dated 09.6.2005, under Sections 420, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), titled as “Mashander Nath vs. Ganesh Raj and others” (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-2). The complainant-respondent No.2 had filed the complaint alleging therein that his daughter Neelam Kumari was married to petitioner No.1 Ganesh Raj. They were blessed with a daughter. Neelam Kumari died during the child birth on 22.1.2004. As per the custom, petitioner No.1 was required to get married with the younger daughter of the complainant namely Shalu. The accused in conspiracy with each other obtained more dowry from Crl. Misc. No. M-15776 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - the complainant but the petitioner No.1 refused to get married to Shalu on 8.4.2005. Complainant led his preliminary evidence in support of the complaint. Vide order dated 21.4.2009, trial court summoned the petitioners to face trail under Sections 420,34,120-B IPC. Hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the younger daughter of the complainant was married to someone else in December 2006. The complaint had been filed just to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted the factum of marriage of the younger daughter of the complainant to someone else in December 2006 but has submitted that the petitioners had cheated the complainant and had obtained extra dowry from him. Petitioners were not entitled to retain dowry given by him to his deceased daughter. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, younger daughter of the complainant Shalu has since been married to someone else. It appears that the complaint was filed by the complainant as he was not happy with the fact that the petitioner No.1 had refused to perform marriage with his younger daughter. The matter was duly inquired by the police on the applications submitted by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The statements of the Panchayat of the village Udipur were recorded and it transpired that no settlement regarding marriage of the petitioner No.1 with Shalu had been arrived at, nor any Shagun ceremony had taken place. In fact, petitioner No.1 had got married to Anju Bala on 20.1.2006. Due to this reason, both the parties had filed cases against each other. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of the criminal Crl. Misc. No. M-15776 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 09.6.2005, under Sections 420, 34 and 120-B IPC, titled as 'Mashander Nath vs. Ganesh Raj and others' (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 25, 2011 Gurpreet