Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.78184-M of 2006 Date of Decision: 10.7.2008 Satish and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 774 dated 27.11.2000 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City, Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. At the outset the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that present petition is not being pressed on behalf of petitioner No.4 Smt. Phootwati wife of Dariya Singh, therefore, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner no.4. He has also informed this Court that Dariya Singh s/o Badlu has since expired. Therefore, the present petition is only on behalf of petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely Satish and Naresh sons of Dariya Singh. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an earlier decision of this Court (Annexure P-7) rendered in the case of the elder brother and bhabhi of the petitioners titled as Rohtash and Another versus State of Haryana (Crl. Misc. No. 11789-M of 2005) which was allowed on 21.11.2006. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is conceded by the counsel that the allegations against the present petitioners are similar to those against Rohtash and his wife who has filed Crl. Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006 2 Misc. No. 11789-M of 2005. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.11.2006 vide which FIR in question has been quashed against Rohtash and his wife is being reproduced as under:- “It is pleaded that marriage between respondent no. 2 and Raj Kumar, brother of petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 19.11.1999 at Rohtak. No child was born out of the wedlock. Allegations were made against all the members of the family including mother in law, father in law and younger brother of Raj Kumar. All the five persons have been challaned. The trial qua the petitioners was stayed whereas trial against other is going on. Quashing has been prayed for essentially on the ground that the petitioners are married and have been living separately in House No. 15 at Village Ahullana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, along with three minor children. Ration card has been appended as Annexure P-2 to substantiate the plea that the petitioners had a separate residence. There is no specific allegation with regard to the demand of dowry against the petitioners. The respondent/complainant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Raj Kumar, husband, on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The additional District Judge vide judgement dated 17.9.2003 has allowed the petition of divorce only on the ground of desertion. Reference has been made to para 10 of the judgement which is reproduced hereunder for convenience:- Resultantly, this petition is hereby allowed on the ground of desertion and that the marriage is totally broken marriage. Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is hereby dissolved. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. In peculiar facts Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006 3 and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.” I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioners were living separate and have their own matrimonial home along with three children, they had no occasion to interefere in the matrimonial life of Raj Kumar and Geeta. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Even the divorce has been allowed only on the grounds of desertion which finding is recorded against Raj Kumar only.” It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are un-married brothers-in-law of the complainant-respondent no.2 and are living separately from the complainant and her husband. Petitioner no.1 was studying in Yamunanagar pursuing his course for Bachelor of Arts and was living in the rented house of one Pawan Kumar at the time of marriage of respondent no.2 and even thereafter. The counsel has relied upon an affidavit dated 24.3.2008 attached as Annexure P-2. Similarly, petitioner no.2 was also student at the time of marriage of respondent no.2 and was studying at Rohtak while staying in Sri Gandhi Harjan Sewa Ashram Dhanipura, Rohtak. A copy of certificate dated 4.12.2000 issued by the society is attached as Annexure P-3. The counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there are no specific allegations against the accused persons whereas vague and baseless allegations have been made the basis in the FIR. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, FIR No. 774 dated 27.11.2000 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City, Rohtak at the instance of respondent no.2 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. July 10 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge