Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 28, 2009 Murlidhar Shastri and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.Pardeep Virk, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.)seeking quashing of FIR No. 296 dated 18.12.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at police Station Division No. 7. Ludhiana (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that she may be allowed to withdraw this petition qua petitioners No. 1 and 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -2- Accordingly, petition qua petitioners No. 1 and 2 is dismissed as withdrawn. Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners and others wherein it was averred that marriage between respondent No. 2 and Dheeraj Kumar was solemnized on 2.2.2006. They were blessed with a son on 3.12.2006, who was presently residing with respondent No. 2. After marriage, all the accused were entrusted with dowry articles, but marriage behaviour of Dheeraj Kumar and other accused never remained good with respondent No. 2 as they were dissatisfied with dowry brought by her. Dheeraj Kumar and other accused raised several demands from respondent No. 2. However, when respondent No. 2 showed her inability to satisfy the demands raised by accused, respondent No. 2 was given merciless beatings by her husband and other accused. In the month of October, 2006, Dheeraj Kumar told respondent No. 2 that he wanted to taken a separate house on rent and for this he needed money to pay the rent as well as to furnish the house. When respondent No. 2 refused to bring more money from her parents she was given merciless beatings by her husband. Parents of respondent No. 2 were called and and ultimately Dheeraj Kumar and other accused raised demand of Rs. 2 lacs for purchase of furniture etc. Father of respondent No. 1 managed to pay Rs. One lakh to Dheeraj Kumar in the presence of his parents. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 was allowed to live in the matrimonial house. Dheeraj Kumar neither took a separate house nor purchased new furniture and thus, misutilised Rs. One Lakh. Father-in-law of respondent No. 2 threatened her with knife and other weapons and raised a demand of money from her. Respondent No. 2 was not allowed to talk to her family members. In October, 2007, Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -3- when respondent No. 2 was pregnant, she was thrown out of matrimonial home by her husband and other accused after giving merciless beatings to her. After birth of child, respondent No. 2 was again brought to the matrimonial home. However, the behaviour of respondent of respondent No. 2 and other accused remained the same. Dheeraj Kumar again started raising demand of money for purchase of furniture and other house hold articles. Respondent No. 2 called her parents and Dheeraj Kumar along with other 5/10 persons thrashed respondent No. 2 in front of her parents and threw her out of the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 3 and 4 are unmarried brothers of Dheeraj Kumar. No specific allegation has been levelled against them in the FIR. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed this petition. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -4- the complainant, 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -5- 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. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-4 ) reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioners No. 3 and 4. They are un- married brothers of Dheeraj Kumar-husband of respondent No. 2One of the said petitioners is stated to 16 years old whereas the other is 18 years old. It appears that petitioners No. 3 and 4 have been roped in this case merely because of their relationship with Dheeraj Kuamr, husband of respondent No. 2. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it would just and expedient to quash the FIR in question, qua petitioners No. 3 and 4. Dheeraj Kumar, husband of respondent No. 2 as well as his parents are facing criminal proceedings. Since the allegation levelled against petitioners No. 3 and 4 are general in nature, continuation of criminal Crl. Misc. No. M- 7010 of 2009(O&M) -6- proceedings against them would be nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No. 296 dated 18.12.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered at police Station Division No. 7. Ludhiana(Annexure P-4) qua petitioners No. 3 and 4 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 28, 2009 PARAMJIT