IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M. No.17018-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 19.3.2007 Prem Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. Present:- Mr.S.K.Verma,Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S.SARON, J.(ORAL) By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( `Cr.P.C.' for short), the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.169 dated 22.10.2005, (Annexure P-2) registered at P.S. Uchana, District Jind for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). A further prayer is made for quashing the subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR including the order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) in pursuance of which charge has been framed by the learned Trial Court. Besides, for quashing the order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) in pursuance of which the revision petition against the order framing charge has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of Gyan Singh, father of Smt. Raj Devi. The marriage of Smt. Raj Devi was solemnised with Gulab Singh (non-petitioner) on 19.2.2003, Crl.M. No.17018-M of 2007 -2- according to Sikh rites. Gyan Singh complainant submitted an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR has been registered. According to the complainant in the marriage of his daughter he had given dowry beyond his capacity. However, the accused were not happy with the dowry articles and were harassing his daughter. She is alleged to have been beaten many times and turned out from the house. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are vague and in any case nothing has been attributed to the petitioners. It is further contended that the order framing charge against the petitioners is liable to be quashed by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his said contention learned counsel cites Shekhar Suman v. Narender and others , 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 366 (P&H). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perused the paper book. The learned Trial Magistrate while passing the order framing charge has considered all aspects of the matter. Statement of Smt. Raj Devi has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It has been stated by her that her husband Gulab Singh (non-petitioner), mother-in-law Santro (petitioner No.2) father-in-law Prem Singh (Petitioner No.1) and Sister-in-law Poonam (petitioner No.3) demanded dowry and they raised a demand for motor cycle. Besides, they used to taunt her for bringing less dowry. It has further been stated by Smt. Raj Devi that her father and brother Subhash came to her matrimonial home at village Kalta on Crl.M. No.17018-M of 2007 -3- 21.6.2003 and they paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to her husband Gulab Singh, father-in-law Prem Singh, mother-in-law Santro and Sister-in-law Poonam. Despite that they later turned her out of the matrimonial home after beating her. They harassed her for bringing more dowry and demanded a motor cycle from her. The complainant Gyan Singh, has also stated on the same lines. In the circumstances, the order framing charge against the petitioners cannot be said to be groundless and neither can it be said that there is no material on the basis of which charge could not have been framed. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not shown whether there has been any entrustment in the facts and circumstances of the case is to be gone into and considered by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. This Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to go into the veracity of facts and examine whether charge that has been framed would be established or not. In fact that is the function of the trial Court. The case of Shekhar Suman (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the fact of the present case. In the said case this Court observed that in terms of Section 245 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless. However, that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the prosecution against him. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, in the present case there is material on record on the basis of which charge has been framed. Besides, the order framing charge has been considered in revision by the learned Sessions Judge and the revision petition filed by the Crl.M. No.17018-M of 2007 -4- petitioners has been dismissed. Even otherwise, the case of Shekhar Suman (supra) is in respect of the provision of Section 245 Cr.P.C. which relate to proceedings initiated otherwise than on a police report. The present case has been initiated on a police report that has been filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However nothing stated hereinabove shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the controversy and the learned Trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of the material and evidence as adduced before it. (S.S.SARON) March 19,2007 JUDGE Reema