CRM.M-27830 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Oct 15,2009. Smt Nirmala Devi -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.N.K.Bansal,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: By this common order I shall be disposing of two petitions i.e. CRM-M 27830 of 2009 Smt.Nirmala Devi Vs. State of Haryana and another) and CRM-M 27875 of 2009 ( Balbir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another) which have arisen out of FIR No 306 dated 20.8.2003 registered under Sections 498-A/406/504/506 IPC, at Police Station City, Bhiwani, pursuant to which petitioner No.1-Balbir Singh in CRM-M 27875 of 2009 has been charge sheeted under Sections 498- A,406/506 IPC and petitioner No.2 Sheela Devi has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A,506 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide his order dated 04.9.2008 and their revision has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,vide his order dated 19.8.2009, CRM.M-27830 of 2009 2 whereas in CRM-M 27830 of 2009, Nirmala Devi has been chargesheeted under Sections 498-A/ 506 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Bhiwani vide his order dated 4.9.2008 and her revision against that order has been dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his order dated 19.8.2009. The petitioners, in both the above mentioned cases, have filed the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order by which the charges have been framed on 4.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the order by which their revision has been dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). While arguing CRM-M 27830 of 2009 (Nirmala Devi vs. State of Haryana and another), learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the married sister of the accused/husband who is living separately with her husband who is working as Superintendent in Central Excise and Customs Department, Delhi. He has also submitted that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken on its face value, though not admitted, the offence is alleged to have been committed at Delhi, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. It is also submitted that it has become the tendency of the complainant side (wife) to rope in each and every member of the family of her husband. While arguing CRM-M 27875 of 2009 (Balbir Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another),learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1. Balbir Singh is the elder brother CRM.M-27830 of 2009 3 and petitioner No,2 (Sheela Devi) is the Bhabhi (elder brother's wife of accused husband) who are living separately. Rest of the arguments which have been noted above in the previous cases were repeated. There is no dispute that before filing the present petitions, petitioners in both the cases had applied for quashing of the aforesaid FIR vide CRM-M 44035 of 2003 before this Court but FIR was quashed only qua Kartar Singh and the following observations were recorded vide order dated 18.10.2006 :- “The prosecution has already collected sufficient evidence to connect Balbir Singh, Smt.Sheela and Smt.Nirmla Devi regarding the offences alleged against them. However, in view of the fact that there is no specific material available with the prosecution against Kartar Singh and only general and vague allegations have been levelled qua him this Court feels that his complicity in the crime is not sufficiently shown”. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that vide order dated 18.10. 2006, it has been observed by the Court that any expression on the merits of the case may not be construed as final decision. It would be open for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence to be led by the parties before arriving at a final decision. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find these to be fit cases for quashing of the order of the Court below because the complainant Balbir Singh has specifically named the petitioners regarding demand of dowry and harassment of his daughter on CRM.M-27830 of 2009 4 that account. Anju Bala, daughter of the complainant, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has supported the version of the complainant. It has come in the complaint that Sheela Devi and Balbir Singh petitioners have demanded a ring, watch and chain from her whereas sister -in-law Nirmala Devi asked her to bring a gold chain. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, only prima facie case is to be seen and the veracity of the allegations is not required to be deeply probed as a mere suspicion is enough to frame the charge. Insofar the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has come in the impugned order that the marriage took place at Bhiwani, where both the complainant and his daughter were residing. Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Oct 15,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge