IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21412 of 2008 Date of decision: 13th October, 2010 Nirmala and another … Petitioners Versus Radha Rani @ Veena … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Radha Rani v. Sham Lal and others’ along with the summoning order dated 5th August, 2006 (Annexure P-2), in which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC. Briefly stated, complainant-Radha Rani alias Veena was married with Sham Lal son of Sampuran Chand on 5th May, 1997. It was stated in the complaint that marriage was performed at Amritsar and at the time of marriage, dowry articles mentioned in the list annexed with the complaint as List ‘D’, were handed over to mother-in-law, father-in-law, Nirmala Rani sister of mother-in-law and Roop Lal husband of sister of mother-in-law. It is stated that from the womb of the complainant-Radha Rani alias Veena and lions of Sham Lal, a son was born, who at the time Criminal Misc. No.M-21412 of 2008 of filing of complaint was aged about six years. It is further stated in the complaint that Sham Lal-husband of the complainant used to beat her as he was addicted to liquor and gambling. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 being sister of mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 being husband of sister of mother-in-law of the complainant, used to taunt her for bringing less dowry and also used to give her beatings. From a perusal of the complaint, it is evident that no specific allegation has been leveled against the petitioners. Only general, vague and omnibus allegations have been leveled against them. In the complaint, five persons were named as accused. During the trial, as per the status report submitted by the trial Court, father-in-law and mother-in- law of the complainant have expired, and husband, who is the prime accused, has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender. A Coordinate Bench, while issuing notice on 22nd August, 2008, had stayed further proceedings qua the petitioners. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is Massi (sister of mother) of husband of the complainant and petitioner No.2 is Massar (husband of petitioner No.1). Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another’ 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 45, wherein it has been held that in most of the complaints, the net is widened too far and distant relations are also involved. It has been further stated that in such cases, the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to save the relations of the husband from unnecessary harassment. The arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners being Massi and Massar of husband of the complainant had nothing to gain from their matrimonial affairs and demand of dowry at their instance, seems unjustifiable. This Court tends to rely upon the 2 Criminal Misc. No.M-21412 of 2008 observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta’s case (supra) and hold that the possibility that the petitioners were falsely implicated, just to put pressure upon husband of the complainant, cannot be ruled out. Hence, the present petition is accepted and the impugned complaint, along with all subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioners is hereby quashed. However the same shall continue against the husband of the complainant. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 13, 2010 rps 3