Criminal Misc. No. M 15488 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M 15488 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.11.2011 Sanjay and others ..............Petitioners Versus Shalu ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Sanjay Pal Singh Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondent RANJAN GOGOI,J.(oral) This Criminal Miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing of complaint proceedings registered and numbered as Criminal Complaint No. 44-1 of 2007 now pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar as well as order dated 5.10.2007 passed in the said case by which the accused named in the complaint petition including the present petitioners have been summoned by the learned trial court. The case of the respondent-complaint in the complaint petition filed is that marriage between the complainant and the accused No.1 Sanjay was solemnized on 29.8.2004 according to Hindu rites. It is stated in the complaint petition that at the time of marriage the parents of the complainant gave sufficient dowry to the family of the accused despite which there were consistent demands for more dowry and different items which could not be met. However, according to the complainant her parents, on two occasions, arranged two amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- which were paid to the family of the accused. In the complaint it has further Criminal Misc. No. M 15488 of 2009 2 been stated that after the aforesaid demands were met, the accused- petitioners kept her properly for sometime but after expiry of a few months the complainant was again harassed and tortured by the accused and her family members and eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home. It is the further case of the complainant that her minor son borne out of the wedlock was kept by the accused and his family members. Acting on the aforesaid complaint-petition and after recording the preliminary statements of the complaint and the witnesses produced by her the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar passed the order dated 5.10.2007 taking the view that the examination of records having disclosed a prima facie case against the accused, they should be summoned to appear before the learned trial Court. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed. From the materials on the record it appears that in respect of the same very incident the complainant had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Hisar alleging the same very omissions and commissions by the accused persons. The said complaint filed by the complainant is dated 14/18-11-2006 and the same was investigated by the Inspector of Police attached to the Crime Against Women Cell, Hisar. Thereafter a report (Annexure P-4) was submitted by the Inspector, CAW Cell, Hisar which would go to show that the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint submitted to the Superintendent of Police were found to be incorrect. In fact in the said report it is mentioned that the parents of the complainant and her brother-in-law had been interfering in the family affairs of the accused-petitioners and there was in fact an incident of assault committed by the family members of the complainant on the Criminal Misc. No. M 15488 of 2009 3 mother of accused No.1 Sanjay. Inspector CAW, Hisar in his report has also stated that he had discussed the matter with both the parties and had tried to settle the same which, however, was not possible due to the adamant attitude of the complainant-wife. The initial complaint to the Superintendent of Police which was duly investigated by Inspector CAW Cell, Hisar is same and similar to the allegations appearing in the complaint petition on the basis of which the learned trial Court had passed the order dated 5.10.2007 summoning the accused persons. There is no mention of the initial complaint addressed to the Superintendent of police and the investigation undertaken by the Inspector, CAW Cell, Hisar in the second complaint filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint petition had already been investigated under orders of the Superintendent of Police, Hisar and the same were not found to be correct, the second complaint has to be construed as an abuse of the process of the court. The order dated 5.10.2007 summoning the accused has also to be viewed from same perspective. I am, therefore, of the view that the proceedings in the complaint case No. 44-1 dated 5.2.2007 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial, Hisar as well as order dated 5.10.2007 passed therein are liable to be quashed in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly. Criminal Miscellaneous is allowed as indicated above. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE November 15, 2010 RSK NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No