Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.12.2009 Shri Parveen Digani & others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out from FIR No.374 dated 20.09.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Model Town, Panipat in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner No.1-Praveen is the brother-in-law, petitioner No.2-Kanta is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3- Lal Chand is the father-in-law and petitioner No.4-Naveen is the husband of respondent No.2 i.e. the complainant. The charges under Sections 406, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner vide Order dated 07.05.2008. While praying for quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising out from the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that; (a) the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 14.07.2007 with Police Station Krishna Nagar, Women Cell. Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 2 (b) Another complaint was made on 18.08.2007. (c) Thereafter, a communication was made on 20.08.2007 by respondent No.2-Poonam to A.C.P, Krishna Nagar, Delhi praying that the case be transferred to Panipat CAW-Cell. (d) It was stated that the incidents mentioned in the complaint dated 18.09.2007 which is the basis of FIR are absent from the first complaint dated 14.07.2007. (e) Thereafter, an FIR was registered at Panipat on 20.09.2007. It was stated that the FIR could not be registered when a complaint was already pending before the CAW-Cell. (f) It was further argued that no offence under Section 406 IPC has been made out as there is no allegation regarding entrustment of stridhan to the petitioners. (g) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the case of the petitioners falls squarely within the ambit of the guidelines/Law laid down and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. In light of the legal proposition accepted in decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 that no second complaint is maintainable on the same said facts, as has been done in the present case, the FIR deserves to be quashed. One Women Cell, Police Station Krishna Vihar, Delhi was investigating the matter and the complainant/respondent No.2 had sought a transfer of the said complaint to Panipat, it was grossly illegal on the part of the respondents to get an FIR registered at Panipat even though the proceedings were alive at Delhi and especially when nowhere, it has come that she was, in any manner, aggrieved by the Investigation/preliminary inquiry being conducted by the Delhi Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard. It is evident from the facts narrated in the petition, as well as, Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 3 from the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that a complaint was filed on 14.07.2007 in the Women Cell, Police Station Krishna Nagar and another one was filed on 18.08.2007 regarding transferring the complaint to Panipat CAW-Cell. However, it is also evident that subsequently, an FIR was registered at Panipat on 20.09.2007 at the instance of respondent No.2. The fact remains that there is only one FIR and i.e. F.I.R. No.374 dated 20.09.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also admitted that on 15.10.2007 a letter was received by Lal Chand Digani, father-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant from the Office of DCP, East District, Delhi stating therein that the inquiry into the complaint pending before the CAW-Cell stood closed. Thus, there is no question of two FIRs. There is only one FIR. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that earlier complaints dated 14.07.2007 and 18.08.2007 had been filed before the Police Station Krishna Nagar, Women Cell. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR should be quashed as the present FIR makes no mention of incidents dated 12.01.2007 and 22.02.2007 which find place in complaint dated 14.07.2007, is not sufficient to quash the present FIR. In fact, the same is incorrect as the incident of exhorting and beating by the husband on 12.01.2007 and 22.02.2007 has been duly mentioned in the FIR, which reads as under :- “ When they troubled me a lot, my parents unwillingly gave a sum of Rs.31,000/- to my in laws side. Even after this, my in-laws family continued to torment me. Time and again, they would say that no car has been given, but at least, you can pay the car instalments. Neither did you buy a house and nor did you make payment of any big sum of money and therefore, you shall have to suffer bearings, harassment, abuses. My mother-in-law and my Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 4 husband would grab me by the hair and would hit me with kicks and punches. My father-in-law and brother-in-law also join in. All of them threatened me that they shall commit my murder. This issue of hitting me went on between the period May 2006 till 26.04.2007.” Thus, both the dates stand included in the period May 2006 till 26.04.2007 as submitted in the FIR. Moreover, specific allegations of demand of dowry have been made against all the petitioners. The allegations of cruelty and beatings are alleged against each one of them by names. Charges have also been framed against all the accused vide Order dated 07.05.2008. Certain items of gold and cash were given on specific demand. Therefore, there are specific allegations in the FIR disclosing the ingredients of the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the FIR is frivolous when the same does disclose the commission of an offence, there is no ground to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case titled as CBI vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava reported in 2006(7) SCC 188, held that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and in exercise of the powers the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. It is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there Crl. Misc. No.M-35919 of 2009 5 is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. To exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR. As per the allegations in the FIR, there is a specific demand of dowry. Certain items of gold were given to the petitioners and cash was given under pressure. There is specific allegation of mental harassment and physical beatings. Whatever appears on the face of the FIR, shall have to be considered without any critical examination of the same. Thus, the truth of the allegation will have to be left to the trial Court. From the reading of the FIR, it does not appear that the ingredients are not made out or that the present case is the case of an abuse of the process of Court. No ground for quashing of the complaint and proceedings arising out from FIR No.374 dated 20.09.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Model Town, Panipat in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 18.12.2009 JUDGE gurpreet