Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Mani Jain And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 April, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and
CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and
CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 30, 2013
Inder Mani Jain and others
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Virmani, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
CRM No. 64977 of 2011 Prayer in this application is for recall of the order dated 31.10.2011, whereby main petition i.e. CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 was withdrawn on the statement made by the counsel, who appeared for the petitioners at the time of hearing, with liberty to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court and surrender there. Liberty, as prayed for, was granted to the petitioners to take all the grounds, CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 2 which had been taken in the said petition, before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
It is the contention of the counsel for the applicant/petitioners that Ms. Madhulika Sharma, Advocate, who had appeared before the Court on 31.10.2011, did not have any vakalatnama of the accused-petitioners. She is working in the office of the arguing counsel and was not authorized to argue the case but was instructed to seek a pass-over. It is, therefore, submitted by him that the order dated 31.10.2011 be recalled and the main petition be heard on merits and decided.
Counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant-petitioners.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and in the light of the pleadings and the assertions made in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the counsel for the petitioners, the present application is allowed. Order dated 31.10.2011 passed by this Court is recalled and the main petition i.e. CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 is taken on Board for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties. CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of FIR No. 295 dated 30.07.2008 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A IPC at Police Station DLF Gurgaon (Annexure P-
1) on the ground of abuse of process of law and further that a CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 3 settlement agreement was entered into between Yasho Kirti Jain-
petitioner No. 3 and Parul Goyal-respondent No. 3 (daughter of the complainant) dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the final decree of divorce on that basis passed on 03.09.2008 (Annexure P-3).
Briefly, the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that Yasho Kirti Jain-petitioner No. 3 was married with Parul Goyal- respondent No. 3 on 20.04.2006. After the marriage, Parul Goyal shifted to Virginia (USA) on 14.05.2006 where Yasho Kirti Jain- petitioner No. 3 was employed. Petitioner No. 1-Inder Mani Jain is father of Yasho Kirti Jain-petitioner No. 3. Raj Dulari-petitioner No. 2 is his mother and Arun Jain and Dheeraj Jain-petitioners No.4 and 5 are his brothers, whereas Sudha Goel-petitioner No. 6 and Prem Goel-petitioner No. 7 are the sister and brother-in-law respectively of petitioner No. 3. Dispute arose between respondent No. 3 and the petitioners while they were in Virginia (USA) and the controversy was resolved through a settlement agreement dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) entered into between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3. Final decree of divorce was passed by the Circuit Court of Fairfax County dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure P-3) on the basis of the settlement agreement between the parties dated 02.09.2008. The marriage between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3 stood dissolved. On a written complaint submitted by respondent No. 2- Sh. P.L.Goel, father of respondent No. 3 Ms. Parul Goel, FIR No. 295 dated 30.07.2008 was registered against the petitioners at Police CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Station DLF Gurgaon.
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of the said FIR on the ground that the registration of an FIR against the petitioners is with an intention to harass and humiliate the petitioners and to wreck personal vengeance upon the accused- petitioners so that they may be taught a lesson. It has been contended that in the light of the settlement agreement dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure P-2), which was followed by a final decree of divorce dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure P-3), the present proceedings being abuse of process of law cannot sustain. It has been stated that all the allegations made in the FIR are false and are based on conjunction and surmises and, therefore, the same cannot withstand the scrutiny of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 426. It has further been asserted that since the parties have entered into a settlement, the FIR registered against the petitioners cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed. On the basis of these pleadings and grounds, arguments have been addressed by the counsel for the petitioners and a prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has submitted that petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon and, therefore, cannot be granted the benefit, as has been prayed for by them in the present CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 5 petition. On the basis of the investigation carried out by the police, the allegations, as made in the FIR, have been found to be correct and the final report has been submitted against them before the competent court. The assertions made in the petition have been denied.
Counsel for the private respondents has denied the assertions made by the petitioners in their petition and has countered the arguments, as raised by the counsel for the petitioners on the ground that these are all disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into by this Court. He contends that the basic principle, which is required to be followed by the Court while proceeding to determine as to whether an FIR deserves to be quashed or not, is that, whether a cognizable offence is made out on the bare reading of the FIR, which has been registered against the accused. If such an offence is made out, the FIR cannot be quashed. He contends that there are clear and specific allegations levelled against the petitioners with specific instances, acts and role assigned to them, which have been, on investigation and recording of the statements of the witnesses, found to be correct, on the basis of which, the challan has been presented against them. Petitioners are fugitive from law and, therefore, cannot seek any equitable relief from this Court. Prayer has, on this basis, been made for dismissal of the petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 6 A bare perusal of the FIR leaves no manner of doubt that there are clear and specific allegations against the petitioners giving details of events and their roles. It cannot be said on the reading of the same that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioners cannot be said to be without any basis or would fall within the parameters, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Chaudhary Bhajan Lal's case (supra), where the Court may exercise its extra- ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR. The details of the allegations against the petitioners and the arguments, as raised by the petitioners, are not being discussed herein, lest any opinion expressed by this Court would prejudice the trial, which is to ensue against the petitioners. As of now, only a challan has been presented against them and it is for the Court below to finally decide as to whether charge has to be framed against the petitioners or not. The arguments, as raised by the counsel for the petitioners with regard to the settlement entered into between petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3 and the subsequent divorce and the effect thereof on the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners can only be gone into by the trial Court after evidence is led by the respective parties. The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in these summary proceedings and, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no case for quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioners is made out.
CRM No. 64977 of 2011 and CRM No. M-14916 of 2009 (O&M) 7 That apart, petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offenders by the trial Court as they are evading the process of law and are rather running away from the same. The equity also is thus, not in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
April 30, 2013 JUDGE
pj