Yogesh Rani and Others vs Harvinder Singh @ Harinder Anand

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No. 53/3/10 dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question had been lodged by the respondent, husband of petitioner No. 1 against respondent and his family members.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

In the present case, case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-1), in brief, is that complainant was married to respondent No. 1 on 11.9.2005. Out of the said, wedlock, they were blessed with a son on 16.8.2006. It was second marriage of both petitioner No. 1 as well as respondent. Petitioner No. 1 had received Rs. 1,37,500/-, from first husband towards permanent alimony, which had been retained by petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was a hot tampered lady and used to humiliate the complainant in the presence of his relatives and friends. Complainant took a separate house in January 2006 on rent from his parents. On 4.11.2008, petitioner No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Complainant was compelled to file a divorce petition against petitioner No. 1. Petition was filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant. However, the dispute between the parties was amicably settled and the petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C were disposed of in terms of the compromise effected between the parties. Complainant and petitioner No. 1 started residing together but petitioner No. 1 again left the matrimonial home on 16.12.2008 and got a case registered against the complainant, his mother, his brother and his brother''s wife vide FIR No. 774 dated 18.12.2008 under Sections 406,498-A, 323,506 IPC at police station City Karnal by levelling false allegations. Complainant was arrested in the said case and was released on bail on 23.12.2008. Mother of the complainant had handed over one gold set weighing 4 1/4 tolas, gold mangalsutra weighing 1� tolas, two gold rings weighing 4 grams each, a pair of gold bangles weighing 2 tolas and a pair of silver anklet weighing 5 tolas to petitioner No. 1 being the wife of her son. The same were to be kept by petitioner No. 1 in her safe custody. On 16.12.2008, petitioner No. 1, who was accompanied by petitioner No. 2 (her brother) and petitioner No. 3 (her uncle), left the matrimonial home by stealing the said gold ornaments. It has further been stated in the complaint that when the complainant, his brother and mother approached the petitioners to return the gold and silver ornaments, they were given slaps, fist and kick blows. Hence, the complaint in question was filed. In support of his case, complainant led his preliminary evidence and the trial Court ordered the summoning of the petitioners to face the trial under Sections 323,420, 379, 506 IPC vide order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-2).

A perusal of Annexure P-10, copy of report No. 4 dated 18.12.2008 recorded at the instance of Gurpreet Anand, sister-in-law of the complainant, reveals that she had stated therein that on 16.12.2008 at about 10.30 A.M., petitioner No. 1 started abusing her for no reason. Petitioner No. 1 caught hold of the complainant from her right hand and as a result of this, her bangles broke and she suffered injuries on her hand. Petitioner No. 1 also gave fist and kick blows in her stomach. Thus, in the said complaint, no reference has been made qua theft of any gold articles. The matter was duly inquired by the police and in FIR No. 338 dated 28.5.2009 under Sections 315 /323 /452 /506 IPC registered at Police station City Karnal, a cancellation report was submitted by the police. Gurpreet Anand, sister-in-law of the complainant, filed a protest petition in the said FIR. After recording the statement of Gurpreet Anand and other witnesses, present petitioners, who are also accused in the said case, were ordered to be summoned vide order dated (Annexure P-8).

Annexure P-11 is the copy of the FIR No. 774 dated 18.12.2008 registered at police station Karnal City under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC at the instance of petitioner No. 1 against the complainant and his family members. It appears that the complaint in question has been filed as a counter blast to the FIR got registered by petitioner No. 1 against the respondent and his family members. A perusal of the complaint, itself reveals that no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Gurpreet Anand, sister-in-law of the complainant, had lodged the report qua the incident dated 16.12.2008 only against petitioner No. 1, whereas, in the present complaint, petitioners No. 2 and 3 have also been arrayed as accused. Further a perusal of the complaint reveals that the gold articles had been handed over to petitioner No. 1 by her mother-in-law. Apparently, the said gold articles are istridhan of petitioner No. 1, thus, she could not be imputed with the allegation of theft of the said articles. Further qua the occurrence dated 16.12.2008, respondent has filed the complaint in question against the petitioners levelling allegations of theft and beatings, whereas, sister-in-law of the complainant has lodged another complaint against the petitioners levelling allegations of beatings given to her. Since in the initial version, which was recorded at the instance of Gurpreet Anand, sister-in-law of the respondent, only petitioner No. 1 was named as an accused. It is evident that at a later stage, brother and uncle of petitioner No. 1 have been arrayed as accused by the respondent in the complaint in question which had been filed on 18.9.2010 with regard to the occurrence which had taken place on 16.12.2008. Thus, the complaint in question had been filed to pressurise petitioner No. 1 with regard to the FIR got registered against her by the respondent and his family members.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court has held 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, 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.

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.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that 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 and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law as the complaint in question has been filed as a counterblast to the FIR got registered by petitioner No. 1 against the respondent. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 53/3/10 dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) are quashed.