Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.08.2010 Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Teja Singh, resident of village Jaipura, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Baljeet Kaur wife of Maninder Singh, d/o Raghuvir Singh, resident of village Ghalkalan, District Moga. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N. S. Panwar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 101, dated 14.05.07, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, P.S. City Moga (I), District Moga, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Baljeet Kaur, complainant/respondent No. 2, was married, to Maninder Singh, on 13.02.05, at Royal Paradise Marriage Palace, Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010 2 Ludhiana, and, the marriage was, later on, registered. For sometime, the husband of the complainant, remained, in India. During that period, he used to treat her cruelly and compelled her, to have unnatural sex with him. The husband of the complainant used to have unnatural sex with her, against her wish, and, asked her, to help him, in making a blue film. When she refused, she used to be burnt by touching the lighted and hot cigarette, on the body. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant, left for Italy. She started residing, in the house of her in-laws. It was stated that the members of the in-laws family, including the petitioner, who is the elder married brother-in- law of the complainant, used to torture her, in connection with the demand of more dowry. They also misappropriated the articles of dowry, entrusted, to them, at the time of marriage. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the petitioner, is the elder married brother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2. He further submitted that, there is no specific allegation, against the petitioner, that he demanded dowry or misappropriated the same, or treated the complainant with cruelty, in connection with the demand thereof. He further submitted that, the petitioner, has been falsely roped in, just with a view, to exaggerate the number of the accused. 5. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, submitted that, the name of the petitioner, was mentioned, in the FIR, Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010 3 by mistake, and, he never misappropriated the dowry articles, nor cruelly treated the complainant, in connection with the demand thereof. He further submitted that, the complainant, never wanted, to proceed, against the petitioner. 6. The Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State, submitted that, the FIR, was registered, against the petitioner, after due enquiry, on the allegations, that he dragged the complainant, and, cruelly treated her. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The complainant, in the reply, filed by her, in clear-cut terms stated that, she inadvertently gave the name of the petitioner, as one of the accused. She also stated, in the reply, that she never intended to proceed, against the petitioner. The same submission, was made, by the Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, at the time of arguments. It is a matter of common knowledge, that when the relations between the husband and wife become strained, then the latter, is out and out, to rope in, as many members of the family of the in-laws, as she could, with a view to take revenge. It was, on account of that reason, that Bhupinder Singh, petitioner, elder married brother-in-law of the complainant, was rope in the present case. In Harjinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4), RCR (Criminal), 332, where criminal complaint, against husband, his parents and five sisters (one Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010 4 minor and one already married) was filed and the proceedings, qua sisters, were quashed, it was observed, by this Court, after referring to a number of cases, decided by the Apex Court, that there is a growing tendency, to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. In this view of the matter, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-349 of 2010, is accepted. FIR No. 101, dated 14.05.07, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, P.S. City Moga (I), District Moga, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioner. 9. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned immediately. 05.08.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE