Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 Date of decision:January 15 , 2011 Tarlochan Singh and others Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners are co-accused with Kalawanti. The said Kalawanti had lodged an FIR No. 116 dated 1.9.2004 u/s 406/498-A IPC against her husband. Kalawanti, who was married to respondent No.2- Mohinder Singh was abundant by him, as such, she started living separately. On 14.12.2004 Kalawanti was abducted by her husband Mohinder Singh and his other relatives from Panchkula and was taken to village Mohd. Khera . A Habeas Corpus petition was filed in the High Court. Kalawanti was recovered from the illegal custody. Thereafter, she made a statement in the court on 17.12.2004, as such, the Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of on 10.1.2005. Mohinder Singh-respondent No.2 husband of Kalawanti lodged an FIR No. 38 dated 14.3.2005 u/s 494/323/506/120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, in which he had levelled allegations against Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 2 the petitioners that they had taken away his wife Kalawawti along with jewellery, clothes and cash. Kalawanti along with the petitioners has been booked in the said criminal case. The petitioners have sought the quashing of FIR No.38 dated 14.3.2005 on the ground that the FIR qua Kalawanti has been quashed by this court vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. M 58907 of 2005. In order to fairly consider all the facts and circumstances of the case for the purpose of quashing of the FIR, it would be relevant to refer to the allegations in the FIR No. 38 dated 14.3.2005. As per the FIR, registered at the instance of Mohinder Singh, he was married to Kalawanti about 15 years back. Two sons were born to him. After 2 years of marriage complainant Mohinder Singh starting living at Panchkula with his wife. In the year 2000 he had got a contract in MES at Leh Ladhakh, for which he had to go to Leh Ladakh. In his absence his wife Kalawanti developed illegal relations with Tarlochan Singh, Driver in the Haryana Roadways at Panchkula. The complainant had given an application on 2.6.2004 to Superintendent of Police, Panchkula. The petitioner Tarlochan Singh No.1 had submitted a written apology at Police Post, Sector 15, Panchkula. On 14.12.2004 Mohinder Singh had taken his wife Kalawanti to his village Mohd. Khera district Jind but the petitioners in consultation with each other attacked his house, for which he made a report at Police Station Peelu Khera. Balbir Kaur had allegedly filed a false writ petition in the High Court. Under the orders of the High Court Kalawanti came to Panchkula in H. No. 2318, Sector 15, Panchkula. On the night of 17.12.2004 petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh and other persons during night went to the complainant's house and took away his wife Kalawanti, for which the complainant had Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 3 given an information to the Police. The house hold articles of the complainant had been taken away from his house. The stolen articles contained jewellery items, a gold chain, a ring and a cash of Rs.35,000/-. Kalawanti had taken away all the jewellery articles and she ran away with the petitioners. The petitioners had allegedly given beating to Mohinder Singh while leaving and also threatened to kill him. Kalawanti changed her name to Kulwant Kaur and had married Tarlochan Singh petitioner No.1 without obtaining divorce from the complainant. It has been claimed by the complainant that petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh has got links with militants and that he had to undergo imprisonment for 1 ½ years. Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently alleged that the allegations of the complainant that the petitioners had taken away his wife and stolen articles from his house, are false in view of complainant's wife having been found in the illegal custody by the Warrant Officer, appointed by the High Court. She had stated that her life was in danger. The FIR qua Kalawanti has been quashed vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. M 58907 of 2005 by this court. A perusal of the judgment dated 4.3.2001 indicates that report of the Warrant Officer dated 17.12.2004 indicated that on 17.12.2004 Kalawanti was found in the custody of Mohinder Singh against her wishes and that the allegation that Kalawawnti had on the same day taken away articles from her matrimonial home at Panchkula was patently wrong and was improbable on the face of it. The FIR had been lodged after three months by respondent No.2, which fact was indicative of the manipulation at the hands of complainant- respondent No.2. In the said order it was opined that the marriage of Kalawanti with Tarlochan Singh was not Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 4 substantiated by any material collected by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that when the allegations against Kalawanti have been found to be false, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of the court. In the reply filed by DSP, Panchkula it has been submitted that challan was presented in this case on 25.10.2005 and that the case is fixed for defence evidence on 31.8.2010. The FIR against Kalawanti having been quashed on 4.3.2010 has been admitted. After taking into consideration all the circumstances and status of the trial, this court is of the opinion that exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR qua the petitioners would not be appropriate. Petitioner No.1 Talochan Singh appears to be in custody as is apparent from the Power of Attorney filed on his behalf and from the interim orders dated 18.1.2010, 4.5.2010 and 31.8.2010. As per the interim orders, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Panchkula, production warrants seem to have been issued for production of petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh in the court. Since the evidence of the prosecution seems to have already been concluded as per the reply filed by the State and the case is listed for defence evidence, without making any reference to the evidence produced, it will not be appropriate at this penultimate stage of trial to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The petitioners may have a good case on merits on appreciation of evidence for acquittal but in view of the stage of the trial, it will not be appropriate at this stage to quash the FIR, which was registered in the year 2005, ignoring the material, which has already been produced before the trial court. Dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the trial court to Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 5 expeditiously dispose of the trial, preferably within a period of three months after a receipt of a certified copy of this order by giving short dates. It will be open to the petitioners to take the benefit of the order passed by this court qua the co-accused of the petitioner. January 15 2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE