IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M 33458 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Narinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and anr …Respondents Present: Mr Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of FIR 50 dated 21.5.2010 (P3) registered at PS Rama Mandi Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, for the offence under Section 498A IPC. The complainant – Parveen Kumari (respondent-2) has lodged the impugned FIR (P3) alleging that she was married with Narinder Kumar Rakshit- petitioner. Her in-laws started beating her on account of demand for dowry. In this regard, an application was filed before the SSP Kapurthala and FIR 333 dated 31.10.2008 was registered. The husband of the complainant namely Narinder Rakshit (petitioner) was not granted bail by the Court at Kapurthala. They filed an application in the High Court and finding no way out, they filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court at Jalandhar. It is alleged that the Court at Jalandhar assured the complainant regarding her safety and honour and sent her with her husband (petitioner). During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, they showed humanity. However, as the case was decided, they started harassing her mentally and physically and also started Cr Misc M- 2 beating her with the intention to take revenge. For the last 25/26 days, her husband had been violating the Court order and was residing with his parents and was not coming to her house. Her husband came to the house on 14.9.2009 and on 15.9.2009 after beating her, has not come back till the date of lodging the FIR. It is alleged that her in-laws’ family is threatening to kill her in the absence of her husband. They would come to her house and would forcibly take away the items of her husband. She was afraid regarding her life and property. She made a statement that if anything happens to her, all her in-laws would be responsible. Her Passport, ATM Card and Voter Card are with them and the same, it was asked to be got returned to her; besides, legal action be taken as per FIR 333 dated 31.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are only allegations in the FIR besides there is no demand for dowry. As such, the offence under Section 498A IPC is not made out. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that earlier FIR 333 dated 31.10.2008 was registered against the petitioner. Besides, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband (petitioner) against the wife (complainant). In the said case, the parties had settled their dispute and had started living together as husband and wife. However, according to the complainant, as soon as the matter had been settled, her husband (petitioner) and her in laws had again started troubling her. The petitioner, therefore, seeks revival of FIR 333 dated 31.10.2009 inasmuch as she has alleged that action be taken as per the said FIR. Besides, there are allegations of beating her. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these are mere allegations. It may, however, be noticed that a FIR is to be registered on the Cr Misc M- 3 basis of allegations only and the matter is to be enquired into and investigated by the Police. In case an offence is made out, Charge Report (Challan) is to be filed in the Court and in case it is not made out, a cancellation report is filed. At present, the matter is still under investigation and, therefore, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out at this stage. The Police is under obligation to investigate the cognizable offences. The matter is, therefore, liable to be left to the Police authorities to investigate into the allegations as made. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering with the FIR. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 22.11.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge