Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 16, 2011 Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Hooda, Additional Advocate General,Haryana None for respondents No. 2 and 3 --- Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 329 dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal under Sections 406, 498-A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the challan has been presented for an offence under Section 498-A IPC. There was no allegation in the FIR against the petitioners qua the said offence. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 2 submitted that all the accused in connivance with each other had been harassing the complainant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3 despite service. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Contents of the FIR (Annexure P1) read as under:- "2.That on 4.2.2011 Meenakshi complainant was married with Naveen S/o Siya Ram. Marriage was solemnized at Panipat as per Hindu Religion and rites. 3.That the parents of Meenakshri spent huge amount ornaments car furniture and parents are greedy people. They started to make demand of huge cash amount. 4. That Naveen during his posting at different stations including Kanpur Gurgaon and Delhi harassed Meenakshi mentally and physically. He never maintained his family members. 5. That out of this wedlock one son and a daughter were born at Panipat and all expenses were borne by parents of Meenakshi. Naveen in the year of 2004 left for Dubai. He returned to India on 30.10.2005 and again left for Dubai on 6.11.2005 and he did not return till now to his wife and children. His parents and brother sisters had been assuring the complainant that he would come back certainly. 6. That now the complainant came to know that Naveen in the last December has contracted a second marriage with another woman. The real name of said woman has been Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 3 concealed. 7. The second marriage has also been solemnized as per Hindu rites at Nissing Distt. Karnal Haryana. Smt.Santosh mother of Naveen and Mohit brother of Naveen, Seema sister and Sanjay brother in law of Naveen have participated. They did an active role in solemnizing second marriage of first marriage and second wife also knew the subsistence of first marriage. They intentionally committed offence by Naveen for huge dowry amount. He and his family members especially his mother and brother are greedy persons. 8. That Naveen though is in service but he is still permanent r/o Nissing. He and his second wife use to visit Nissing Naveen with his help and participation of Santosh Mohit Sanjay Bhardwaj and Seema performed second marriage at Nissing is offence of bigamy.” It has been held in 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 4 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 report or the complainant, 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. Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 5 (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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioners qua the demand of dowry or harassment on account of demand of dowry. The allegation qua demand of dowry has been levelled by the complainant against her husband and his parents. So far as petitioners are concerned, the allegation levelled against them is that they had helped Naveen in performing his second marriage. Thus, the allegation levelled Crl.Misc. No. M-29329 of 2010 6 against the petitioners are vague. Moreover, after due investigation, challan has only been presented for an offence under Section 498-A IPC on 17.4.2010 and not for an offence under Section 494 IPC. Petitioner No.2 -Seema is the sister of Naveen, husband of the complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2. The marriage of the petitioners was performed in the year 1999. Petitioners are residing at Thaneshar after their marriage and it appears that they have been involved in this case due to their relationship with Naveen, husband of the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.329 dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal under Sections 406, 498-A, 494 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 16, 2011 arya