Criminal Misc.-M No.26549 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 16, 2008 Sushila and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Pankaj Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Prayer is for quashing the complaint as well as summoning order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Ruchi, daughter of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and sister of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, was married to Jitender Kumar on 27.2.2004 at Ghaziabad (U.P.). She stayed in her matrimonial house at Rohtak. There was allegation of demand of dowry. Some demands were Criminal Misc.-M No.26549 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : statedly met, but when the demand and physical abuses increased, she was taken away from Delhi, where at that time she was staying. She was found in very serious condition at that time and accordingly the complaint was made on 14.5.2005 at Sarojini Nagar Police Station. FIR was also registered on 21.5.2005 at Ghaziabad under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. Jitender Kumar, husband of Ruchi, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Ruchi and after appearing in response to the notice, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek maintenance. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The quashing petition was filed before the High Court of Allahabad, which was disposed of by staying arrest of the petitioners in that petition, with a condition that they would pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner. As a counter-blast to this FIR, respondent, who is brother of the husband of Ruchi, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case against the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506, 148, 149, 34 and 120-B IPC. The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioners came to the house of the complainant at Rohtak and assaulted him on 3.7.2005. This is stated to be a false allegation on the basis of which the charge sheet has been filed by the police at Rohtak. Another complaint dated 7.3.2006 has been filed under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners with the allegation that they came to the house of the respondent and threatened him to compromise the case filed earlier. The petitioners Criminal Misc.-M No.26549 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : have been charge sheeted in FIR No.531 dated 14.9.2005 and the case is now fixed for evidence on 22.10.2008. The quashing of the complaint etc. is sought on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and frivolous and are counter-blast to the matrimonial differences, which have arisen between the parties. Alleging that the complaint and the summoning order is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law, the present petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is by now well settled by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 233, various grounds on which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised have been noticed. It has also been observed that the factual position in regard to the role played by the petitioners would have to be proved by leading cogent evidence before the Trial Court. On the basis of affidavit, it will not be appropriate to hold one way or the other. The petitioners would get opportunity to raise all the defences that are available to them. It would be for the Trial Court to see if the complainant succeed in proving the allegations made in the complaint or whether the petitioners are able to establish their innocence. This Court can not assume the role of Trial Court to say that the allegations made against the petitioners, on the basis of material, would not ultimately stand proved or not. That will be the role of Trial Court. The allegations, if false and counter-blast, are required to Criminal Misc.-M No.26549 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : be established by leading cogent evidence before the trial court. Accordingly, no case for quashing the complaint and the summoning order is made out. The present petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 16, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE