IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-27880 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.9.2011 Harbans Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Sardevinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has prayed that FIR against her be quashed on the ground that the allegations against her are false. According to the allegations in the FIR, when the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of the complainant, at the dead of night was present in the house, the complainant heard some muffled voices and on coming closer he realised that his daughter-in-law was in conversation with the accused persons, who on seeing the complainant pounced upon him and beat him up. The allegations against the petitioner are that she abetted the commission of offence and the accused persons were used to frequenting her company. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the allegations are purely false and that she was also beaten up in the scuffle. Crl.Misc.No.M-27880 of 2011 (O&M) -2- On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the complainant has expressed reservations about the role of the petitioner. In the opening lines of the FIR he has stated that the petitioner is not on cordial terms with him and that the accused were frequenting her and on the date of the incident those persons came to the house to beat the complainant. Even though no direct role has been attributed to the petitioner for causing injury to the complainant, yet there is suggestive material which points out to the complicity of the petitioner in the abetment of offence. At this stage in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when there are some allegations against the petitioner, the Court cannot quash the FIR and scuttle the investigation more so when there is no mechanism with this Court to examine the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant. Reliance has also been placed upon Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P.& Anr. 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 298 (Allahabad) and Dr.Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.). But, as observed earlier, noticing the fact that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner of having abetted the commission of offence, I am of the opinion that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not enhance his case in any manner. Dismissed. 13.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss