IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 13619--M of 200 8 Date of Decision: 16.12.2008 *** Malkeet Chand @ Kita Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.85 dated 28.8.2004, registered at police station Kartarpur under Sections 498-A IPC. The petitioner is admittedly cousin brother of one Amarjit Singh, the husband of respondent No.2-complainant Shirender Devi. The impugned FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 containing the allegations that her husband, in-laws and other relatives of her in-laws family harassed her for bringing insufficient dowry and that her istridhan has been misappropriated by the said persons. The impugned FIR has been registered against as many as 12 persons including the present petitioner. However, challan was filed only against three persons while nine persons, including the present petitioner were kept in column No.2, but were subsequently summoned vide order dated 4.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. It has been contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant containing vague allegations and thereby involved each and every family members and the petitioner, who admittedly is residing separately has nothing to do in the life of married couple. In the reply filed on behalf of complainant, the quashing of the impugned FIR has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner has not preferred any revision against his summoning by means of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and there are specific allegations against him. The paper-book has been carefully perused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 (2) Rcr (Criminal) 695 (SC), has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. Further, in the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 313, when a first information report was lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire family members of the husband, this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR against the unmarried sisters and brothers, by observing that “it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband the wife become strained.” Similarly, in the case of Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 332, a criminal complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the husband, his parents and 5 sisters and the proceedings qua sisters were quashed with the observation that the allegations against the sisters are vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. Similarly in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are unbelievable and omnibus and have been levelled just to drag him in the criminal proceedings in relation to harassment on account of demand of dowry and misappropriation thereof. The petitioner, who is the cousin brother of the husband and is living separately, in no way, can be said to be beneficiary to the said demand. It appears that the allegations, so far as present petitioner is concerned, have been made by the complainant just out of frustration, who since has failed to keep up her matrimonial ties with her husband. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the complainant as to the maintainability of the instant quashing petition is concerned, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in clear words that where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. The vague allegations in the petition against the petitioner and insufficient grounds to summon him warrant the interference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against the petitioner with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and consequently the impugned FIR and consequent proceedings taken therein, to the extent of petitioner, are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 16,2008 Jiten