Criminal Misc. No.44316-M of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.44316-M of 2006 Date of decision : 2.9.2008 Ram Phal and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Virender Saini, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. S. D. ANAND, J. Respondent no. 2 is estranged wife of Ram Avtar, a son of petitioners Ram Phal and Hukmi Devi. Ram Avtrar and Promila got married on 25.2.1998 at Hisar. One female child was born out of their union. Ram Avtar, a Nayak in the Army, wanted respondent no.2 to continue to stay with former's parents till he completes his training. This was not acceptable to respondent no. 2 who unannouncedly left matrimonial house on the night of 30.9.1999. Thereafter, she lodged a FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC on 2.10.1999 (Annexure P-1). The police filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in that case. The petitioners have already been charge sheeted, vide order dated 20.5.2000 (Annexure P-2). On account of the constant harassment and threats held out by his in-laws Ram Avtar committed suicide. A suicide note left by him was forwarded by the Commanding Officer to the petitioner vide his “information letter dated 23.4.2005”. After six year thereof, respondent no. Criminal Misc. No.44316-M of 2006 -2- **** 2 filed a (private) complaint No. 68 dated 23.5.2005 on those very allegations but without disclosing the factum of her having lodged FIR No. 409 dated 2.10.1999 (Annexure P-6). On perusal of the preliminary evidence, learned Trial Magistrate ordered the summoning of the petitioners to face a trial for offences under Section 498-A/ 406 IPC vide order dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure P-7). As apparent from a conjunctive perusal of FIR No. 409 dated 20.10.1999 under Sections 498-A, 323,34 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak (which had been lodged by respondent No. 2) and the (private) complaint filed by respondent no.2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, long thereafter, the allegations are absolutely similar in character. The inescapable conclusion, in the circumstances of the case, is that the (private) complaint by respondent no.2 is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of the Court. The petitioners, who are parents-in-law of respondent no.2, are being prosecuted by the Police of Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak in case FIR No. 409 dated 20.10.1999 under Sections 498- A, 323,34 IPC and they have already been charge sheeted by a Court at Rohtak. They cannot be vexed twice on similar allegations which respondent no. 2 levelled against them. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned complaint dated 23.5.2005 (Annexure P-6) and summoning order dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure P-7) shall stand quashed. September 02, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE