In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.190 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:7.1.2009 Arjan Dev .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeks quashing of the order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner Arjan Dev against the order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) framing charges against the petitioner has been dismissed. A prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) whereby charges have been framed by the learned trial Court. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Surinderpal (respondent No.3), who is the brother of Harbans Kaur (respondent No.2) wife of Arjan Dev (petitioner). It has been alleged in the FIR registered by Surinderpal (respondent No.3) that his sister was married to Arjan Dev (petitioner) on 11.10.1994. The petitioner, it is alleged, has been harassing the sister of the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry. Cr. Misc.-M No.190 of 2009 [2] They had tried their best to fulfill all the demands raised by the petitioner. The sister of the complainant was having children and the petitioner was not providing money for purchase of day to day items for their daily use. Besides, the petitioner used to beat Harbans Kaur (respondent No.2) and compelled her to go to her parents and bring money from the aged parents of the complainant. The other members of the family also used to harass and ill-treat the sister of the complainant. On the basis of the complaint made, FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) was registered. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) framed charge against the petitioner Arjan Dev for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It was held that no prima facie case for the offence under Section 406 IPC was made out. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure-P.6) dismissed the same. The said orders dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) and dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure-P.6), as already noticed, are assailed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the supplementary challan dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure-P.4) filed by the Police in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. a request had been made by the Police to discharge the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to be discharged as no offence was made out. A reference has been made to the inquiry report (Annexure-P.2) submitted by Superintendent of Police City- II, Jalandhar. On the strength of the same, it is submitted that the petitioner is liable to be discharged. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of Cr. Misc.-M No.190 of 2009 [3] the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the order dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 8.2.2007. The petitioner took no steps to assail the said order till the filing of the present petition which was filed on 6.1.2009. Therefore, there is considerable delay in assailing the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that no evidence has been recorded in the case and, therefore, the case is liable to be considered at this stage. Be that as it may, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has duly considered the report made by Superintendent of Police City-II, Jalandhar on the basis of which the discharge of the petitioner is primarily sought. It was noticed that there is no date mentioned as to when the said report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police City-II, Jalandhar. Besides, there was no material which had been discussed on the basis of which the Superintendent of Police City-II, Jalandhar found the petitioner to be innocent. It had been mentioned in the report that some statements were recorded by the Inquiry Officer but these were not discussed in the report. Even a reference to the names of the persons whose statements were recorded had not been made. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether the statements of the complainant (respondent No.3) or the sister (respondent No.2) of the complainant were recorded. Learned counsel states that he is unaware of it. In the circumstances, it is evident that there is no basis for recording the report (Annexure-P.2) that has been submitted Cr. Misc.-M No.190 of 2009 [4] by Superintendent of Police City-II, Jalandhar. A perusal of the said report merely shows that the Superintendent of Police had carefully perused the file and recorded statements of the witnesses and found that the complainant had registered the present case and false allegations were made against all the accused because ten years had lapsed after the marriage and the parties had three children from their marriage. As against this the learned trial Court in his order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure-P.5) has considered the statement of Harbans Kaur (respondent No.2) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she specifically stated about the cruelty, maltreatment and demands of dowry as also she being beaten by the petitioner. From the said statement it was observed that prima facie from the statements recorded during investigation offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned trial Magistrate having recorded reasons for framing charge which have been upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure- P.6) no ground for interference is made out in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 7, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*