Crl. Misc. No. M-46375 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 46375 of 2007 Date of decision. 09.12.2009 1. Khazan Singh s/o Shankar Singh, 2. Smt. Sarti Devi wife of Khazan Singh, Both rs/o village Alewa, Tehsil and District Jind. 3. Ved Parkash s/o Sh. Khazan Singh, 4. Asha Rani w/o Ved Parkash Both rs/o H.No.147, Sector 1, Shahbad, District Kurukshetra 5. Vinod Sharma s/o Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma, r/o Kharindwa, P.S. Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. ....... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Haryana. 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi w/o Ranbir Singh r/o village Kharindwa, Tehsil Shahbad, P.S. Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. None for respondent no.2. -- Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No. 189 dated 6.6.2006, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Shahbad, District Crl. Misc. No. M-46375 of 2007 2 Kurukshetra, and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. 2. The aforesaid FIR, was registered, at the instance of Smt. Nirmala Devi, respondent no.2, on the allegations, that she was married to Ranbir Singh son of Khajan Singh, on 25.02.2001, according to Hindu religious rites and ceremonies, at village Hathira, District Kurukshetra. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry such as Fridge, Cooler, Colour TV, Washing Machine, TV Trolley, Double Bed, Diwan Sofas set, Table, Dressing Table, Almirah, box, Sewing Machine, 101 utensils, gold ornaments, weighing 150 grams, cash in the sum of Rs.40,000/- for motorcycle, press, dinner set, cash in the sum of Rs.51,000/- etc. were paid. It was stated that one gold ring was entrusted to Khajan Singh, accused, one gold ring was also entrusted to Asha Rani, accused, one gold bangle was entrusted to Ved Parkash, accused, and one pair golden earn rings were entrusted to Sarti Devi, accused. It was further stated that the accused also subjected respondent no.2 with cruelty in connection with the demand of Rs.2.00 lacs (two lacs). It was further stated that they refused to give back the dowry articles, when respondent no.2 was thrown out of her bridal house. Crl. Misc. No. M-46375 of 2007 3 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, in the petiton, and at the time of arguments, submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that the FIR was got registered by Smt. Nirmala Devi, respondent no.2, as a counter blast to the Civil Suits, pending between her husband and the accused- petitioners, with regard to dispute of land. It was further submitted that the FIR is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent submitted that the FIR is not an abuse of the process of law. It was further submitted that the accused- petitioners, were entrusted with the dowry articles, but they refused to return the same, when respondent no.2, was thrown out of her bridal home. It was further submitted that the FIR was not got registered by Smt. Nirmala Devi, respondent no.2, as a counter blast to the Civil Suits, pending between the petitioners and the husband of respondent no.2. It was further submitted that even the accused-petitioners subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. It was further submitted that the charge has already been framed, against Crl. Misc. No. M-46375 of 2007 4 the accused-petitioners. He further submitted that no revision petition was filed by the accused-petitioners against the order of framing charge. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed,for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Charge has already been framed against the accused-petitioners, vide order dated 18.07.2007. Revision petition is maintainable, against the order framing charge. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that no revision petition was filed, against that order. While defining the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court, in State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 (SC), held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision, in the Code or any other enactment, for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Apex Court, no resort to the extraordinary remedy, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., could be made, in view of the ordinary remedy of revision, available under Section 397 Cr.P.C. As stated above, the ordinary remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C., was not Crl. Misc. No. M-46375 of 2007 5 availed of by the petitioners. Had the revision petition been filed, against the order, vide which the charge was framed against the petitioners, in the event of acceptance of the same, by the Court of Sessions, the proceedings, as a whole, would have terminated. In view of the above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. The same is thus, liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable. 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed, being not maintainable. However, it is made clear, that the petitioners, if so advised, may avail of the remedy of filing a revision, against the order dated 18.07.2007, vide which the charge was framed against them, by the trial Court. If an application for condonation of delay alongwith such a revision petition, is field by the petitioners, in the Court of Sessions, the same shall be considered sympathetically by it. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 8. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 12.01.2010, at 10.00 AM. December 09, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge