Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Another vs Jaspal Singh on 8 August, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-2802 of 2005 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-2802 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.8.2011.
Kuldeep Singh and another ........Petitioners
Vs.
Jaspal Singh ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint dated 11.2.1999 under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) (Annexure P-3) and the summoning order dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had been tried for an offence under Section 304-B IPC in FIR No. 152 dated 24.8.1997, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar and vide judgment dated 15.2.1999, the petitioners had been acquitted of the charges framed against them. The complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and Section 406 IPC on 11.2.1999 was liable to be dismissed as the petitioners had Crl. Misc. No. M-2802 of 2005 (O&M) -2 - already faced trial under Section 304-B IPC.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
The petitioners along with Arvinder Kaur had faced trial under Section 304-B IPC. The trial court vide order dated 15.2.1999 held that there was no dispute that Harminder Kaur had died on account of burn injuries within seven years of her marriage but there was no reliable and trustworthy evidence to hold that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry. The trial court was further influenced with the fact that the accused had tried to extinguish fire and had suffered burn injuries in this process and had taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment. The Criminal Revision No. 752 of 1999 filed by the respondent against the said judgment of acquittal of the accused passed by the trial court was dismissed by this court vide order dated 26.3.2003. Since the petitioners had already faced the trial under Section 304-B IPC, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them qua the present complaint would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The trial court, while passing the impugned order of summoning the petitioners to face trial under Section 406 IPC, has failed to take in consideration the implication of the fact that the petitioners had already faced trial qua higher offence under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for an offence under Section 406 IPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be nothing but an Crl. Misc. No. M-2802 of 2005 (O&M) -3 - abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The complaint dated 11.2.1999 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and Section 406 IPC (Annexure P-3) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure P-4), are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 08, 2011 Gurpreet