Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR dated 8.2.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur and transfer of the investigation to some independent agency as well as transfer of the case to other District and judicial proceeding arising from the said FIR.

FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of statement of the complainant-Sarabjit Kaur and the same as per Annexure P1 is as under:

I was married to Dharminder Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh, r/o H. No. 82 Ajit Nagar Kapurthala about 7 years back my father spent on marriage as per their capacity and gave dowry as per his capacity and gave dowry as per his limit out of wedlock a son was born to me who is 6 � years. My husband lived in foreign Country and about 5 years back he returned back to his house i.e. Kothi No. 82 Ajit Nagar Kapurthala as he was not well and my family sent on his treatment but he got no improvement and on 4.9.08 my husband died. After his death my in laws behaviour was not good towards me. They used to beat me and threatened me to get life and harassed me very much. That about three months back when my family visited there to attend bhog ceremony my in laws asked them to take back their daughter with them. Now on 25.11.2008 my in laws has beaten me and threw me out of the house and they threatened not to come back otherwise they kill me. It is requested that action as per law be taken against my in laws. I shall be thankful to you.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case due to political intervention.

It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , 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 u/s 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 and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases whereinsuch 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

(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

It was further held in this case that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should de exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. 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.''

The allegations levelled in the FIR are that after the husband of the complainant died on 4.9.2008. Petitioners started harassing her and on 25.11.2008 after giving beatings to her, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was threatened not to return back at the matrimonial home. The investigation of the case is at initial stage. No ground for quashing the FIR, at this stage, is made out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.