Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1772 (PNJ)

Liza Chaudhary v. State of Punjab

2012-12-06

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Liza Chaudhary, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 19.04.2011 registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Patiala, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the wife of devar of the complainant Harpreet Kaur, respondent no.2. According to him, the petitioner married Navdeep Singh, devar of the complainant on 08.12.2009 while the marriage between the complainant and Amandeep Singh was solemnized on 20.05.2007. According to him, a careful perusal of the FIR would show that there are no allegations against her, which may attract sections 406 and 498-A IPC. According to him, she has only been accused in this case being devrani of the complainant and a member of the family of Amandeep Singh, the husband of the complainant. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition. He has submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner which have to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence. According to him, the FIR is not liable to be quashed qua the petitioner. 4. The allegations against Liza Chaudhary, the petitioner start when it is said that she was married with Navdeep Singh on 08.12.2009. The allegations against the petitioner are that she had illicit relations with Navdeep Singh as well as Amandeep Singh, the husband of the complainant for about 10 years. She is also accused of having threatened the complainant of not allowing her to be rehabilitated in the house and then she is claimed to have started encouraging the husband of the complainant and the other accused against her and her husband kept beating her under state of intoxication. 5. The allegations against Liza Chaudhary, the petitioner for having illicit relations for the last 10 years with not only Navdeep Singh, with whom she married on 08.12.2009 but also with the husband of the complainant, not only appear to be motivated but also wild. There could be nothing with the complainant to prove the same. Moreover, this aspect has no connection with the offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. There could be nothing with the complainant to prove the same. Moreover, this aspect has no connection with the offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC. What concerns the aforesaid offences is that she used to encourage Amandeep Singh, the husband of the complainant and other family members to give beatings to the complainant. After 08.12.2009 there is one or two such incidents where Amandeep Singh is said to have given beatings to her but in the FIR, it is not made clear that it was done by him at the instance of the petitioner. 6. A mere threat not to allow the complainant to be rehabilitated would clearly not fall within the provisions of the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The reply of the State coming on the record clearly reveals that the complainant with her husband had shifted from her matrimonial home to Patiala and if it was so, then the role of the petitioner in the life of the complainant should have become minimal. 8. In these circumstances, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Involvement of the petitioner in the said case by the complainant appears to be only for the reason that she is a member of the family of the husband of the complainant. Since the allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner, did not attract the offences in question, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed qua her. Hence, the petition is allowed. FIR No.20 dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Patiala, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC is quashed qua the petitioner. ---------0.B.S.0------------