Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2010 Jagroop Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.SKS Brar, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) seeking quashing of FIR No. 79 dated 25.7.2007 registered under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 109 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda. Complainant Amarjit Kaur moved a complaint against the petitioners and their co-accused. On the basis of the same, FIR in Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) 2 question was registered against the petitioners and their co-accused. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 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. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) 3 report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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. Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) 4 (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 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.” Petitioner No.1 Jagroop Singh is uncle (Taya) of husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of petitioner No.1 and are, thus, cousins of the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that there are general allegations against the petitioners. In fact, specific allegations have been levelled against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. It appears that the petitioners have been merely roped in this case due to their relationship with the husband of the complainant. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but abuse of process of Criminal Misc. No.M-52750 of 2007 (O&M) 5 Court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.79 dated 25.7.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 498-A, 109 IPC, registered at Police Station Dayalpura, District Bathinda and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 14, 2009 anita