Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 August, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 28, 2012
Pooja
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab,
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 4 to 9.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to carry out the investigation on the basis of DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, which was made part of FIR No. 205, dated 19.3.2010, against respondent Nos. 4 to 9, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the present petition are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 4, Varun Kumar, on 16.1.2005. It was an inter-caste marriage. Due to variety of reasons stated CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 2 in the complaint, respondent No. 4 and the petitioner could not pull on well, therefore, the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 205, dated 19.3.2010, under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, at Police Station, City, Bathinda.
3. The investigation was not conducted properly, therefore, the petitioner filed CRM-M No. 2357 of 2010, before this Court praying for issuance of direction to the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for registration of the case on the basis of written information, dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-1). After coming to know about the filing of the said criminal miscellaneous petition, FIR No. 205, dated 19.3.2010, under Section 498A, IPC, was registered against respondent No. 4, Varun Kumar, the husband of the petitioner only. The petitioner also moved an application, dated 19.9.2009, for transfer of the inquiry from the Station House Officer, Women Cell, to any other police officer. The allegation of the petitioner was that the FIR was not registered while taking into consideration the complaint (Annexure P-1) submitted by her.
4. During the pendency of the above referred criminal miscellaneous petition, respondent No. 2 filed a status report disclosing that DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, was recorded in accordance with the complaint (Annexure P-1). It was submitted by respondent No. 2 that investigation of the case was in progress. It was further submitted that at that time, the FIR was not recorded properly and DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, had CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 3 been made part of the above said FIR. It was also disclosed before this Court that action would be taken against the defaulting officers.
5. In view of the submissions made by the official respondents, CRM-M No. 2357 of 2010 was rendered infructuous vide order dated 12.8.2010. According to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, was made part of the FIR, no action was taken against respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to carry out the investigation on the basis of DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, which was made part of FIR No. 205, dated 19.3.2010, against respondent Nos. 4 to 9, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the influence of respondent Nos. 4 to 9, the local police did not investigate the case properly and registered the FIR on the basis of incomplete facts. He further submitted that the petitioner approached this Court vide CRM-M No. 2357 of 2010, and thereafter the investigating agency registered DDR No. 15, dated 11.8.2010, and as such, the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was rendered infructuous. The investigating agency did not take action against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in accordance with law and, hence, finding no other alternative the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 4 of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for initiating appropriate action against private respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
7. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were in love with each other and, as such, they performed their marriage without the consent and wishes of their respective family members. The petitioner belonged to a Scheduled Caste while respondent No. 4 was Khatri by caste. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 disowned respondent No. 4 and, as such, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 started residing at the first floor of the house and maintained a separate kitchen. Out of the said marriage, a son was born. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 could not pull on well and, as such, the petitioner left the company of respondent No. 4 and started living at the house of her parents. After about 1½ year of leaving the matrimonial house, FIR No. 205, dated 19.3.2010, was registered. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the senior police officers and it was found that respondent No. 4 had committed the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC, therefore, the charge sheet was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for his prosecution. Even the charges were framed and the case was posted for prosecution evidence. In such a situation, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the police, then the recourse available to her would be in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 5 meticulously examined the material available on record. It is a fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 4, Varun Kumar, belong to different castes. They fell in love with each other and performed their marriage without the consent and wishes of their respective parents. The parents and other family members of respondent No. 4 disowned him and, as such, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 started residing at the first floor of the house. Due to temperamental differences, they could not pull on well and, as such, the petitioner left the company of respondent No. 4 and started living with her parents. After 1½ year of leaving of her matrimonial house, she lodged FIR No. 205, 19.3.2010, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After thorough investigation, the police had already submitted the charge sheet against respondent No. 4 only for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC. In case the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation then in that eventuality either she could make her grievance before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate at the time when he took cognizance of the charge sheet for referring the matter to the investigating agency for further investigation or she could pray the learned Trial Court for taking cognizance in terms of Section 190, Cr.P.C., against the left over accused on the basis of the material available on record. If the petitioner is able to show to the Court from the fresh material during the course of prosecution evidence then she has the remedy in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C.
CRM-M No. 10960 of 2011 (O&M) 6
9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for issuance of any direction by this Court at this stage for further investigation. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
August 28, 2012 JUDGE
Pkapoor