HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 24 of 2008 Reserved on: 22.4.2008. Decided on: 1.5.2008 Tript Kaur ………Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Vijay Pandit & Ms.Yogita Datta, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the FIR No.161, dated 20.8.2007, registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station, Dharamshala under Sections 498-A, 406, 506/292 and 34 IPC. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent who filed reply. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Yasmin, daughter-in- law of the petitioner, a case was registered against the petitioner, her daughter _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - and husband of the complainant on the basis of which the challan has also been filed before the trial Court. It was submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, no case is made out under Sections mentioned above and no occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court. It was also submitted that the perusal of the annexures filed alongwith the petition will show that the case has been registered against the petitioner and others as a counter blast to the steps taken by the complainant’s husband in filing the cases against the complainant and her father and as such the present FIR deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer had opposed this petition on the ground that this is no stage to consider as to whether evidence is sufficient or not. It was also submitted that the annexures at this stage cannot be looked into by this Court in deciding that the allegations made in the FIR are false. A perusal of the record of the case shows that the marriage in between the complainant Yasmin and her husband Gursharan Singh Sandhu had taken place on 27.1.2007. The parties lived together thereafter and on 29.11.2007, the present FIR was registered by the complainant against the petitioner and two other accused persons mentioned above resulting in the filing of the challan as against the petitioner and others. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also placed on record Annexure P-1, a copy of the report lodged by the complainant, Annexure P-2 copy of the report lodged by her husband Gursharan Singh Sandhu and Annexure P-2/T a copy of the report lodged by the complainant’s husband, Annexure P-3 a copy of the complaint lodged by said Gursharan Singh Sandhu as well as copy of the petition Annexure P-4 which show that petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Maintenance Act for judicial - 3 - separation was filed by Gursharan Singh Sandhu against the complainant in the court of District Judge, Chandigarh. In my opinion, all these documents cannot be considered at this stage to hold that the allegations made in the FIR lodged by the complainant are false. The plea that the present FIR was lodged by the complainant as a counter blast cannot also be considered at this stage since these are separate proceedings which have been initiated by the complainant’s husband by filing petition for judicial separation and for lodging the complaints and these are not in itself sufficient to show that the present proceedings deserve to be quashed. All these documents are required to be proved and the court where the trial is pending is to consider the effect of these documents. But this court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot consider these documents to form an opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are false. Apart from above, once an FIR has been registered against the petitioner and others resulting in the filing of the challan, not only the FIR deserves to be quashed but the further proceedings initiated on the basis of the FIR resulting in filing of challan as against the petitioner are to be quashed for which there is no specific prayer since the prayer made is only for quashing of the FIR. It can be argued that once the FIR is quashed, all the other proceedings resulting in the filing of the challan subsequent to the lodging of the FIR will stand quashed. However, that question does not arise to be considered once the evidence was recorded by the police after registration of the FIR and the said evidence is yet to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of framing of the charge as to whether the evidence is sufficient or not for framing of the charge; if so under which Sections. Until and unless the said power has - 4 - been exercised by the learned trial Court resulting in the framing of the charge, if any, no opinion can be given as to which of the offences are made out or whether the evidence led before the police is sufficient or not for framing of the charge. In my opinion, once the charge sheet has already been filed, it is for the court to consider the evidence recorded by the police as well as the plea in regard to the jurisdiction, cause of action and under which Sections the case is made out. Therefore, I am not inclined to express any opinion in regard to the evidence since it may prejudice the mind of the court once any opinion is expressed on the evidence recorded by the police and it is for the trial Court to independently consider the evidence, considering the pleas raised at the time of framing of charge by the counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, it is for the court to consider as to whether the documents so filed before this Court, in case they are filed before the said court, are required to be considered at the time of framing of charge or not in accordance with law and no opinion is being expressed as to whether these documents should be considered or not and it is for the trial court to consider this plea once these documents are filed before it before or after framing of the charge, if any. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that once a cognizable offence is made out from the allegations made in the FIR, which has resulted in the filing of the challan and evidence is yet to be considered by the court, the present proceedings pending as against the petitioner, who is mother of the complainant’s husband, cannot be quashed at this stage. In view of above, it follows that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and the same is dismissed accordingly. The petitioner to appear in the court on the date fixed for hearing by the learned trial Court. - 5 - In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. May 1, 2008 (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), Judge.