IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-14080 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Avinash Diwan & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.94 dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 406, 494, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Adampur, District Hisar, at the instance of petitioners Avinash Diwan, Somnath Diwan and Rajender Kaur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, contends that petition is not pressed on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Crl. Misc. No. M-14080 of 2009 [2] As regards, petitioner No.1, it has been contended that there are no allegations against petitioner No.1 which would indicate commission of any of the offences alleged to have been committed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant contends that there are specific allegations against petitioner No.1 and therefore proceedings qua him cannot be quashed. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. Perusal of the FIR indicates that FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, Monika Diwan, whose marriage was solemnised with Ravinder Diwan son of Somnath Diwan son of Jiwan Dass. Petitioner No.1 is paternal uncle of the husband. 6. It has been alleged in the FIR that complainant’s parents and relatives had given articles to accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Petitioner No.1 has been named as accused No.5 in the FIR. The only allegation against petitioner No.1 is that the said petitioner threatened the complainant that his son Amit was married to Rajni of Hisar. Rajni had been left after divorce by harassing her. Nothing untoward had happened to petitioner No.1 and his family. 7. The other allegation against petitioner No.1 alleges that the complainant, her brother and mother gave two gold carras, one ring of ` 32,000/- and ` 11,000/- cash to accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, at the marriage of brother of the complainant. In this regard, there is no specific entrustment as to which article was given to whom. 8. On the third count, allegation against petitioner No.1 Crl. Misc. No. M-14080 of 2009 [3] is that the parents and uncle (petitioner No.1) of husband of the complainant used to speak while secluding the complainant whereupon the complainant got suspicion. 9. Considering the three portions of the FIR, I am of the considered opinion that no offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 or 506 IPC or even conspiracy is made out against petitioner No.1 even if the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true. 10. Petitioner No.1 appears to have been implicated only because he happens to be the paternal uncle of husband of the complainant. It, therefore, is made evident that the complainant has falsely implicated the said petitioner in abuse of process of Court and process of law. 11. In view of the above, petition qua petitioner No.1 is allowed. FIR No.94 dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A, 406, 494, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Adampur, District Hisar and consequent proceedings qua petitioner No.1 are hereby quashed. 12. The petition regarding petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is disposed of as not pressed, with liberty to the said petitioners to take all the grounds taken in this petition, during the course of trial. (AJAI LAMBA) September 28, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?