Criminal Misc.-M No.5941 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 21, 2008 Hari Singh Nain & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The quashing of FIR containing allegations of matrimonial differences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is sought by the petitioners, who are in-laws of complainant-respondent No.2 Ajit Kaur. The prayer for quashing basically flows on the ground that Criminal Misc.-M No.5941 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : petitioners are siding with the complainant/daughter-in-law against their own son, who has developed illicit relations with an another girl Jaswinder Kaur and is living with her. Plea is that the petitioners are rather taking care of the complainant and had been a witness to the harassment and torture of the complainant by their son. The petitioners have made reference to the incident, which had led to filing of the FIR wherein the husband of the complainant and Jaswinder Kaur had given beating to her, in which the petitioners are witnesses. It is also mentioned that the complainant continued to stay with the petitioners and had applied for a passport by giving their residential address as her own. On 1.9.2006, when the petitioners and respondent No.2 had gone to attend the hearing of the case in Narwana court, the husband of the complainant gave beating to her in the court complex leading to registration of an FIR No.222 dated 2.9.2006. In this context, it is alleged that brother of the complainant took her away and had lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners as well. From the grounds raised in the petition, it is seen that the petitioners would mainly plead their false implication on the ground that they had always sided with the complainant against their son and as such cannot be held responsible for the offences arising out of matrimonial disputes as alleged in the FIR. It is noticed that the challan in this case has already been presented, which is alleged to have been done by the investigating agency by holding the investigation in a casual manner. Whether the petitioners are falsely implicated or not cannot be determined at this stage on the basis of Criminal Misc.-M No.5941 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : material and evidence placed on record. Simply because the son of the petitioners has illicit relations with another lady would not mean that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. All these aspects are required to be proved by cogent evidence, to be led before the trial court. 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. It has been so observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 233. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. October 21, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE