Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar Sharma And Others vs Neelam Rani Sharma on 15 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M-28374 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.11.2013
Sandeep Kumar Sharma and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Neelam Rani Sharma
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for
for respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.11/1 dated 9.2.2008/ 11.2.2008 titled "Neelam Rani Sharma vs. Sandeep Kumar Sharma' (Annexure P-4) under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, petitioner No.1 got married to Neelam Rani Sharma on 25.1.2006. After about 1 ½ month petitioner No.1 left for Canada. Petitioner No.1 completed all the formalities qua sponsorship of the respondent but her case was rejected by the authorities concerned. Petitioner No.1 had got a decree of divorce in Canada, whereas, respondent had got a decree Devi Anita 2013.11.19 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-28374 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of divorce in India. Now petitioner No.1 had got re-married and had been blessed with two children. The complaint in question had been filed after a long delay of two years.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the petitioners had harassed the respondent. Lot of articles including gold ornaments had been given by the respondents at the time of marriage of the respondent to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, petitioners had raised a demand of ` 15,00,000/- to enable petitioner No.1 to purchase a house. Since the respondent was unable to satisfy the said demand, she was given beatings by the petitioners.
In the present case, petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent, whereas, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4 is the maternal uncle of petitioner No.1. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 got married to the respondent on 25.1.2006. Respondent lived in the house of petitioner No.4 for about one month after her marriage. As per the case of the complainant, all the petitioners had raised a demand of ` 15,00,000/- for purchase of a house. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 left for Canada. Since the respondent could not meet the said demand, she was given beatings by the accused.
In support of her case, complainant led her preliminary evidence.
Petitioner No.1 had come from Canada for marriage purposes. However, he failed to take the respondent to Canada. Devi Anita Although, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 2013.11.19 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-28374 of 2010 (O&M) -3- petitioner No.1 had got a decree of divorce in Canada, whereas, respondent had got an ex parte decree of divorce in India, but the said facts are not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings. Factum of delay in filing ofg complaint, at this stage, is not relevant for quashing criminal proceedings. The said fact can be gone into by the trial Court during trial after parties lead their evidence in support of their respective pleas.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 15, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.11.19 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh