Criminal Misc.No.M-14850 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-14850 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 09, 2011 Nirmala and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. Mr.APS Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This petition has been filed by Nirmala (mother-in-law), Ravinder Khanna (brother-in-law/'husband's brother') and Pinky (sister-in-law/`husband's sister') of Mamta – complainant/ respondent No.2 wife of Arun Khanna, seeking quashing of complaint No.64 dated February 10th, 2009 (Annexure P1) titled “Mamta alias Raman vs. Nirmala and others” filed under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and the order dated September 25th, 2009 (Annexure P2) passed therein, whereby, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections. 2. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was married with Arun Khanna on April 28th, 1999. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. After the marriage, she was being harassed by the petitioners for not bringing adequate dowry. She was turned out of her matrimonial home by the petitioners on a number of occasions. The dowry articles, which allegedly were given in the marriage to the petitioners, have been misappropriated by them. 3. Petitioner No.1, who is mother-in-law of the complainant is 72 years old widow. The husband has not been named by the complainant to be an accused. The complainant and her husband are residing in the same house, in which the petitioners are residing, a fact which has not been refuted by the counsel for the complainant. Criminal Misc.No.M-14850 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] Moreover, the complaint was filed on February 10th, 2009, that is, after about ten years of the marriage. In the complaint, no specific dates or instances have been mentioned by the complainant as to when and how she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners. Otherwise too, it is the husband, who would be direct beneficiary of dowry. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that after the death of father-in-law of the complainant, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to the property, owned jointly by the petitioners and husband of the complainant, qua which, civil suits are also pending between the parties. 5. Since the dispute between the parties, that is, petitioners on the one side and the complainant and her husband on the other side, was with regard to the property, owned by the husband of petitioner No.1 and civil suits are pending between them, it appears that present complaint against the petitioners was filed to harass them. It was never expected that after ten years of the marriage, the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty were made by the complainant against the petitioners, for the first time. 6. The peculiar facts of the case reflect that the complainant has attempted to colour a family civil dispute into a criminal case, to throttle the opposition in civil suit, which, in the view of this Court, is sheer misuse of the process of law. 7. Hence, the petition is accepted and the complaint No.64 dated February 10th, 2009 (Annexure P1) titled “Mamta alias Raman vs. Nirmala and others” filed under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and the order dated September 25th, 2009 (Annexure P2) passed therein, are hereby quashed. August 09, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) gian JUDGE