Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 August, 2010
Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010
Date of Decision:August 09, 2010
Ritu
---Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
---Respondents
Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
***
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Sidharth Sarup Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4.
***
GURDEV SINGH, J.
Heard.
The petitioner, Ritu Piplani, who is the married sister of husband of Renuka, complainant, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 212 dated 9.4.2010 registered under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010 -2- City Kaithal, and all the proceedings arising therefrom. She has averred therein that her marriage was solemnized on 20.9.1999 with one Anant Piplani and since then she is settled in her matrimonial home situated in Pitam Pura, Delhi. After her marriage, she had not been interfering in the family life of the complainant-respondent and was having no time to visit her parental home due to busy schedule, having two school going children. The FIR has been lodged against her with some ulterior motive and with mala fide intention to rope in all the relations of the her brother. Even from the bare reading of the FIR no offence is made out against her. There is no specific allegation against her. She is innocent.
On notice of motion having been issued, respondents no. 1 to 3 filed joint reply whereas respondent No. 4 filed her separate reply. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply supported the contentions of the complainant as made in the FIR. They pleaded therein that investigation has already been completed and the challan has also been filed before the Court. The petitioner was found to be involved in the commission of the offence of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles. She along with other accused used to demand dowry from the complainant and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home for brining the car. During the investigation, it was also found that she had been treating the complainant with cruelty. All the relations of the husband have not been involved in this case as he has another sister, who has not been named in the complaint as an accused.
Respondent no. 4 in her reply denied the contentions of the petitioner and pleaded that her matrimonial home was at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, which is not at much distance from the residence of the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010 -3- The petitioner used to visit her parental home almost at every weekend and sometimes in between also. She was actively involved and was instrumental in the commission of the offences. The other sister of the husband; namely, Neelu, is also residing at Delhi. As there was no allegation against her so she was not named as an accused . There are specific allegation of harassment and cruelty against the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, the FIR is not to be treated an encyclopedia of the offences committed by the accused. It was only meant for giving information regarding the commission of the cognizable offices against the accused. The pleas raised by the petitioner are disputed questions of facts, which require adjudication by way of trial.
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married much before the marriage of the complainant and thereafter she had been residing with her in-laws. She had been rarely visiting her parental home and there was no question of her treating the complainant with cruelty. There is no contention in the FIR that any such dowry article was entrusted to the petitioner and as such there was no question of her committing the offence under Section 406 IPC. He has further submitted that there are vague allegations against the petitioner and she has been roped in only because of her being related to the husband as sister.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. Moreover, the FIR was not supposed to be the encyclopedia of all the facts. It was during the investigation, that evidence was collected Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010 -4- against the petitioner and after finding that evidence to be sufficient, the challan has been presented in the Court. The offence of cruelty is clearly made out from the contents of the FIR itself. There is no question of roping in the petitioner in this case on account of being the sister of the husband as he has another sister; namely, Neelu, who has not been named as an accused in the FIR. Disputed questions of facts are involved, which cannot be decided in the present petition.
This Court while deciding this petition is to keep in mind the recent trend of the misuse of Section 406 and 498-A IPC by the wives. The judicial notice can be taken of the fact that efforts are made by the relations of the wife to rope in the maximum relations of the husband. The FIR may not be the encyclopedia of all the facts, but still it is to be seen from the contents thereof if any such offence, as mentioned therein, is made out therefrom against the petitioner, if all the facts stated therein are taken on their face value. It has no where been stated in the FIR, that any such dowry article was given to the petitioner or was entrusted to her. When there is no such entrustment, it cannot be said that she has committed the offence of criminal misappropriation. No offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against her. There are vague allegations against the petitioner that she along with other accused gave beatings to the complainant and turned her out of the matrimonial home. No doubt, the dates of those beatings have been given in the FIR, but it is not stated therein, as to how those beatings were given, which weapon was used and by which accused. It is not the case of the complainant that she got herself medically examined regarding the beatings, so given by her. It is also in her reply that this petitioner had been residing with her in-laws. However, she has tried to contend that she Crl. Misc. No. M- 14347 of 2010 -5- had been coming to her parental home almost every weekend and some time in the middle of the week. The alleged beating are stated to have been given on 5.4.2010 which was Monday and not the end of the week. In these circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful, if such beatings were given to the complainant by the present petitioner. There is no other allegation against her in the FIR.
Keeping in view all the above said facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been involved merely being the sister of the husband of the complainant. Accordingly, this petition is accepted. The FIR, mentioned above, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to quashed qua the present petitioner.
(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 09, 2010 PARAMJIT