Criminal Misc. No.M-4023 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.M-4023 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:03.02.2009 Jagsir Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate for Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Jagsir Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.144 dated 27.10.2007 registered under Sections 498-A, 506, 420 of IPC at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga against the petitioners and others at the instance of respondent No.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that from perusal of FIR No.144 ibid Annexure P.2, no prima-facie case is made out under the aforesaid Sections. The general allegations of entrustment as well as cruelty, cheating without any date and time cannot be taken into consideration. The petitioners being brother and bhabhi of the husband of the complainant's daughter have been falsely roped in. Therefore, this Court has got inherent powers under Section 482 ibid to quash FIR Annexure P.2 Criminal Misc. No.M-4023 of 2008 (O&M) -2- as well as subsequent proceedings. In reply filed to the petition, it has been averred that as per facts mentioned in the FIR, there was dowry demand and maltreatment of Sarabjit Kaur at the hands of the accused/ petitioners. There are specific allegations against all the accused that they maltreated Sarabjit Kaur for the demand of more dowry. The challan against the accused has already been presented in the Court of Shri Kuljit Pal Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga and is fixed for framing of charge for 23.7.2008. Consequently, this petition being bereft of any merit may be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. A glance through the FIR Annexure P.2 would reveal that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. There are allegations that on 24.9.2007, the complainant along with her sister-in-law Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Piara Singh resident of Daulatpura Niwan went to enquire about the girl. When both of them entered the room and started talking with their daughter, then the accused locked the door from outside. They remained locked inside for about one hour. They kept on knocking the door. The accused kept on abusing them by standing outside apart from threatening to kill them. During this time, the complainant's daughter told her that the accused gave her the drugs and she remained unconscious. The accused are saying that either to give the share in the land or give Rs.10 lacs in cash. The accused have obtained the signatures of her daughter forcibly by taking her to the Court at Moga about which they came to know after inquiry. Admittedly, the petitioners along with others have been charge-sheeted by the learned trial Court and the next date, fixed for prosecution evidence is Criminal Misc. No.M-4023 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 7.3.2009. In re: Manjula Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 271, the Apex Court has observed that “The application filed before the High Court related to alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Undisputedly the charge-sheet has been filed and the same was not in question. Charges have also been framed and, therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise.” If the matter is viewed in the light of these observations, the question of quashing of FIR does not arise. More to the point, the contents of the FIR reveal the commission of offences. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in re: Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 101, also no ground is made out for quashing the FIR. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. February 03, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No