Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 947 (PNJ)

Raghbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-09-06

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the complaint dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure P1); the order dated 6.9.1999 (Annexure P2) whereby charges were framed; as well as the order dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure P3), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order framing charges against them, was dismissed. 2. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers of Puran Chand got married to Rani Devi-complainant, respondent No. 2 on 3.6.1994. As they could not pull together, their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. However, during the interRegulation m, the complainant (Rani Devi) filed criminal complaint dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure P1), in which apart from her husband and mother-in-law the petitioners were also named as accused. The aforesaid complaint was directed to be investigated by the police, vide order dated 29.6.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Accordingly, FIR No. 285 dated 29.6.1991, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC was registered by PS City Kaithal, in which charges under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioners as well on 6.9.1999 (Annexure P2). Aggrieved at framing of the charges the petitioners preferred a revision petition which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide one of the impugned orders, dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure P3). 3. On 7.9.2001, while issuing notice to State of Haryana, further proceedings qua petitioners were stayed by this court. 4. In support of the prayer in this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner in the complaint (Annexure P1) are totally vague and wild since no specific instances of either misappropriation of the complainants istri dhan and/or causing any harassment to her for not bringing sufficient dowry are attributed to the petitioners, therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is, thus, liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed by him upon two judgments of this Court reported as Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 394 (SC) and Prabhdeep Singh v. Sukhwinder Kaur, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 (P&H). Reliance has been placed by him upon two judgments of this Court reported as Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 394 (SC) and Prabhdeep Singh v. Sukhwinder Kaur, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 92 (P&H). He has also referred to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 745 (SC). 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned State counsel have contended that since allegations against all the accused persons are made in the complaint (Annexure P1), and specific instances, if any, are to be proved by leading evidence in support thereof, no case for interference by this court and that too in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., is made out. 6. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions and having regard to the limited scope of interference by this court in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this petition is disposed of with the following directions :- (i) since the petitioners are facing trial in a case originating out of the matrimonial discord; the petitioners are granted exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court and may represent themselves through a counsel, however, subject to an undertaking before the learned trial Court that they will not delay and/or stall the trial proceedings in any manner; (ii) it will be open for them to raise all the pleas before the trial Court at the appropriate stage and the same shall be considered in accordance with law; (iii) as an abundant precaution, it may be mentioned that the learned trial Court while considering the allegations of demand of dowry and/or refusal to return istri dhan, shall be guided by the observations made by the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharmas case (supra). (iv) Since the case has remained pending in this court for a sufficient long period, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably, within a period of one year. Petition disposed of.