IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.9460 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 6, 2011 RAMRATI SHARMA & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.414 dated 12.6.2009 under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1). 2 The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.2-Shubra was married to son of the petitioners; namely, Lalit Sharma, on 5.7.2006. In the petition, it has been pleaded that soon after the marriage, there were disputes between the husband and wife, whereupon the petitioners thought it appropriate to disown their son-Lalit Sharma, so that they are not entangled in criminal litigation at this stage of their life. Under the circumstances, Lalit Criminal Misc. No.9460 -M of 2010 2 Sharma was disowned by the petitioners on 30.6.2007 by way of a publication in the newspaper, placed on record as Annexure P- 2. It has also been brought out that while the petitioners were living at Bathinda, the husband and wife were living at Jalandhar. FIR impugned in this petition was lodged on 12.6.2009. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been implicated only because they happen to be father and mother of husband-Lalit Sharma. A perusal of the FIR, per se, does not indicate any allegation against the petitioners which would disclose commission of offence by the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant contends that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and simply because they had disowned their son, they cannot be absolved of the offences committed in the present case. 5 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6 A perusal of the FIR indicates that the nature of allegations against the petitioners is vague. It has been alleged that petitioner No.1 used to taunt the complainant that they were expecting a car from her parents at the time of marriage but their desires have not been fulfilled. 7. It is further alleged that Lalit Sharma would regularly consume liquor and would misbehave with the complainant. He took excessive liquor during a marriage function and lost control Criminal Misc. No.9460 -M of 2010 3 over his senses, which left a bad impression and the complainant was ashamed of his behaviour. This fact was brought to the notice of the petitioners, but the petitioners did not take any action against their son. 8 It is further alleged that on the occasion of Karva Chauth, in the year 206, gifts were brought by the parents of the complainant, however, they were insulted by the accused persons by saying that substandard articles have been brought. The other allegation against the petitioners is that although the complainant developed some complications during delivery, the petitioners did not visit her in the hospital. The parents of the complainant took her to Karnal to look after her. The complainant was taunted because she gave birth to a female child and not to a male child. 9 Having considered the nature of allegations and the contents of the FIR collectively, it becomes evident that soon after the marriage, there was a dispute between husband and wife. The dispute itself appears to be on account of problem of consuming liquor by husband-Lalit Sharma, who is not a petitioner in this petition. Because of the repeated quarrels between the husband and wife, Lalit Sharma was disowned by the petitioners in June, 2007. 9 I have also taken note of the fact that the petitioners started living at Bathinda while the couple were living at Jalandhar. The nature of allegations indicate that the petitioners have been implicated only because they happen to be parents of Lalit Sharma. The allegations against the petitioners are non- Criminal Misc. No.9460 -M of 2010 4 specific and vague and, per se, do not convey commission of offences, as alleged. The petitioners appear to have been implicated only because of their relationship. Implication of the petitioners and continuance of trial of the petitioners would cause manifest injustice and would be an abuse of the process of law and process of court. 10 In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 11 FIR No.414 dated 12.6.2009 under Sections 406/498- A/323/506/34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-1), is quashed qua the petitioners. July 6, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?