Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Kartaro Bai and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khungar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.A.K.Sama, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.43 dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 406/ 498-A/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners and her husband Rattan Singh. It has been alleged in the FIR that respondent No.2 was married to Rattan Singh about 3 ½ years back. At the time of her marriage, sufficient dowry had been given by her parents but Rattan Singh and others were not happy Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 2 with the dowry given to her by her parents and demanded ` 1,00,000/- in cash and a motorcycle. Respondent No.2 was residing with her parents for the last three years. Rattan Singh and others had been threatening respondent No.2 and her parents, brothers and sisters that they would eliminate them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.1 was not related to Rattan Singh, husband of respondent No.2, and had only acted as a mediator qua marriage of Rattan Singh with respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 was sister of mother of Rattan Singh aged about 64 years and was residing with her son Gurnam Singh. Petitioner No.3 was married daughter of petitioner No.2 and was residing with her husband Shail Singh- petitioner No.4. The petitioners had been falsely involved in this case, although they were residing separately. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that Rattan Singh had been adopted by petitioner No.2 and was residing with her. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 3 secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 4 of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the Criminal Misc. No.M-28868 of 2010 5 relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. A perusal of the FIR does not reveal that Rattan Singh had been adopted by petitioner No.2. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. Moreover, petitioner No.1 had acted as a mediator at the time of marriage of Rattan Singh with respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is the aunt of Rattan Singh. Petitioner No.3 is the daughter of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3. It appears that the said petitioners have been merely involved in this case as there is a growing tendency in this country to involve various relatives of the husband when a matrimonial dispute arises between the husband and wife. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.43 dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 406/ 498-A/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 29, 2011 anita