Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Pinki and another ......Petitioners Versus Pooja .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.K.Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Parmod Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint dated 31.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1. The said petitioners are residing separately at Rohtak. They have been falsely Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) 2 involved in this case due to their relationship with the husband of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that there were specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint and hence, the petition was liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Annexure P-1 is the complaint filed by the respondent against her husband and his family members on the allegations that they had been harassing her on account of insufficient dowry brought by her. The accused were demanding more dowry. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations levelled against them are mentioned in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the complaint. The private complaint was filed by the respondent as no action was taken by the police in the FIR No.212 dated 2.6.2008 registered against the petitioner and their co-accused. In support of her case, respondent led her preliminary evidence. The trial Court ordered the summoning of the accused on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the respondent. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) 3 prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) 4 are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis 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.” Crl.Misc.No.M- 31723 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Para Nos. 6 and 7 of the complaint read as under:- “6. That accused No.5 and 6 used to say they shall perform second marriage of Parmod, within 15 days of the complainant's death. Accused No.5 and 6 has given the threats that she cannot live with Parmod and Parmod is under their control and he will do what will they say. They also taunted that you have not brought the sufficient dowry. Accuse No.5 and 6 also demand for a golden chain after a gap of two months after the marriage. 7. That on 14.6.2007 accused No.6 came at Rohtak in night along with Parmod and they misbehaved with complainant and her family members and gave the threat of life. Information was given to the police and case under Section 107/ 151 Cr.P.C. was registered against the Parmod. Copy of D.D. is enclosed.” Since there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint, it would not be just and expedient to quash the complaint. The petitioners can take up all the pleas available to them during trial. The petitioners have appeared before the trial Court and were ordered to be released on bail. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 28, 2011 anita