Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 742 (PNJ)

Kidar Nath v. Harpreet Kaur alias Mansi Meen

2013-05-30

Sabina

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Vide this order, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint No. 47 dated 10.6.2010 titled as Harpreet Kaur @ Mansi Meen versus Bhushan Kumar Meen and others and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 6.1.2012. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent Harpreet Kaur @ Mansi Meen was habitual of filing criminal complaints against her husband and his family members. FIR lodged by Harpreet Kaur was quashed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2011 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7924 of 2008. Petitioner Manisha Rathi had not performed marriage with Bhushan Kumar, husband of Harpreet Kaur. Rather, Manisha Rathi had performed marriage with Rajul Kumar Verma. In this regard, reliance has been placed on certificate of marriage dated 31.12.2011. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that petitioner Manisha Rathi was presently residing in England in connection with further studies. 3. Learned counsel for complainant Harpreet Kaur has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that sufficient evidence had been led by the complainant in support of her case before the Trial Court. Matrimonial advertisement had been got published by Bhushan Kumar and his family members on 20.11.2005 posing him as a divorcee. Bushan Kumar and Manisha Rathi were residing together as husband and wife. 4. In the present case, complainant Harpreet Kaur had lodged FIR No. 9 dated 10.1.2007 at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) against Bhushan Kumar, Kidar Nath Meen, Sarabjit Kaur, Devinder Kumar Meen and Manisha Sharma. The said FIR was quashed by the Apex Court vide order dated 2.9.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2011 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7924 of 2008. The copy of the order has been placed as Annexure P-4 in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. M-6323 of 2012 and M-4950 of 2012. While quashing the FIR in question, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 9. The copy of the order has been placed as Annexure P-4 in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. M-6323 of 2012 and M-4950 of 2012. While quashing the FIR in question, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 9. The complaint made by the respondent No.2 does not, in our view, make out a case under Section 498- A IPC and appears to have been filed by the respondent No.2 based on misunderstandings between the parties prompting the respondent No.2 to attack the appellant for something which is likely to have occurred during their stormy marriage. 10. In our view, the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not appreciate the nature of the on and off relationship between the appellant and the respondent No.2, which caused him to dismiss the appellant’s application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there were serious allegations in the FIR which have been registered against the appellant regarding his alleged cruelty and maltreatment of the respondent No.2 and even misappropriation by him. 11. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, since from the entire records available it is clear that the complaint made by the respondent No.2 did not make out a prima facie case to go to trial under Section 498-A IPC. 12. In such circumstances, we are inclined to accept Mr. Aggarwal’s submissions that no offence under Section 498-A IPC had been made out against the appellant and the complaint was, therefore, liable to be rejected and the FIR was also liable to be quashed. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the basis thereof, are quashed. 5. Certificate of marriage of petitioner Manisha Rathi dated 31.12.2011 reads as under:- “Certified that an application for registration of marriage of Mr. Rajul Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Dharampal Singh Verma R/o 893, South Civil Line, Near NCC Office, Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) India and Mrs. Manisha Rathi D/o Shri Suman Kant Rathi R/o 524/4, 53, Civil Line, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar (Uttarakhand) India was received on 31.12.2011, according to the application the marriage is solemnised on 27 December 2011 at Gupta Resorts Delhi-Dehradun Highway, NH 58, Vahalna Chowk, Muzaffar Nagar, (U.P.) India. It has been Registered in the office at Volume no. Manisha Rathi D/o Shri Suman Kant Rathi R/o 524/4, 53, Civil Line, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar (Uttarakhand) India was received on 31.12.2011, according to the application the marriage is solemnised on 27 December 2011 at Gupta Resorts Delhi-Dehradun Highway, NH 58, Vahalna Chowk, Muzaffar Nagar, (U.P.) India. It has been Registered in the office at Volume no. 29 Serial no. 183 at 2011 on pages 247-304 of the Hindu Marriage Register Maintained under the Hindu Marriage Registration (Utter Pradesh) Rules 1973.” 6. Case of the complainant as per the complaint in question, in brief, is that her marriage was performed with Bhushan Kumar on 27.11.2004 at Patiala. Complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Complainant had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the complainant and Bhushan Kumar had not been dissolved till date. However, Bhushan Kumar, in connivance with other co-accused had performed marriage with Manisha Rathi without taking any divorce from the complainant. Bhushan Kumar and his family members had even got a matrimonial advertisement published in newspaper Hindustan Times on 20.11.2005 alleging that Bhushan Kumar was a divorcee. The said act had been done by the accused in criminal conspiracy with each other to cheat the complainant. Bhushan Kumar and Manisha Rathi were living together as husband and wife and had visited Bhopal in March 2010. 7. Although, complainant has levelled allegations in the complaint that Bhushan Kumar, her husband, has performed marriage with Manisha Rathi but a perusal of the marriage certificate of Manisha Rathi with Rajul Kumar Verma falsifies the said averment. The complaint in question was filed on 10.6.2010 and the impugned summoning order was passed on 6.1.2012. Before passing of the summoning order, petitioner Manisha Rathi had already performed marriage with Rajul Kumar Verma and, thus, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 494 IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. It appears that there is some matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband. Due to this reason, she had lodged the FIR against her husband and his family members levelling allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles but the said FIR was quashed by the Apex Court vide order reproduced hereinabove. It appears that there is some matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband. Due to this reason, she had lodged the FIR against her husband and his family members levelling allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles but the said FIR was quashed by the Apex Court vide order reproduced hereinabove. It appears that out of misunderstandings between the parties, as noticed by the Apex Court while quashing of FIR No. 9 dated 10.1.2007 under Section 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Tripuri, Patiala, the complaint in question has also been filed by the complainant. In case there was truth in the allegations levelled by the complainant, petitioner Manisha Rathi would not have got married to Rajul Kumar Verma on 27.12.2011. It has been stated during the course of arguments that presently Manisha Rathi is residing in England to pursue further studies. In this factual background, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed. Criminal complaint No. 47 dated 10.6.2010 titled as Harpreet Kaur @ Mansi Meen versus Bhushan Kumar and others and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 6.1.2012, are quashed. --------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————