High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/7286/2020dismissed

Surinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Another

2025-01-22Mrs. Justice Amarjot Bhatti5 pages

! "

# ( )

& !

# ( )

& !

# ( )

& !

# ( )

& ! &

&*)+!

( !

(& )

&*)+!

( !

(& )

&*)+!

( !

(& )

&*)+!

( !

(& )

,-$ )./

01 $ 2 3$

Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

44444

(& )

/ (

(& )

/ (

(& )

/ (

(& )

/ (

#$ -$0$ "-$ .0 3 -0$ 5 $ #

,6 7-26 ' 00 -0$ 59

#/ $6$0 #. $: ;

<-$ # = 0 ..

7-.

3$06 $ 2$$> .-06 2.. $3$

3$0 -0$

8 $ #

;

<-$ #= 0 2$62 00

;

<-$ #8=

9 00

? %

-$0$ "-$ 0 2$@

' 2 / ' 00 ;

<-$ # =

A $6$0 2 A$ >3. 8 32 00

00$0 #/ -$.

(.02$ 6 20$ #.

2-B0/ C

"-$/ 603 / ">.C "-$/ 2/ -$0$ "-$ $.A/

,2 "->$/

2A/ 2-./

C:/ 2$>3.

0 C3.

A2$

0 2 2 6 >$$0 A2 20$ #.

2 :$

&- 2

A0.,/ 2 61 B$2 A2 A

:$ .0

$ 2-B0 20

6 B$0

A .16 B$0 $ 2 . :$ --.:

0 20

1$ > $ ..0 2$ .32

2 A 030

2$ 3$ $ 2$ -$11.

$ >$$6/ 2 A 2$0 0 ..$0

2$ 2-B0 20$3.

0 2$ >>B$ .A >.:

0.0

2 >3.

2 A .0 2 2 61 B$2 6$.

2.0 2

2 A..

B ,3 2 2-

2 A 1 B -3 B:

2 -0

0.0 2 >3.

2 -0 $0 2$ 61 01$ 2$

2-B0

2 A0 $0 A2 2$ 2-B0 .A 2-/ B- 2

A --.:

2$0 B:

2 -0

& / -0

3$ 1 $0 ,..

2 A -0$ 2$

!1 #2:

2 1..6 .6 A2 -0 .0 2$ 61 01$ 2$ 2-B0 B-

2 $-0

D2 2 ..6/ 3$ ' A $6$0

After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court (Annexure P-2) and present petitioner Surinder Kaur and accused Manjit Kaur were chargesheeted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC vide chargesheet dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) whereas Chinderpal husband of the complainant was declared as proclaimed person. 4.

Learned counsel for petitioner Surinder Kaur raised argument that she is married sister of Chinderpal husband of respondent No.2. Her marriage took place prior to the marriage of Chinderpal and she is living in matrimonial home having no interference in the matrimonial life of respondent No.2 and Chinderpal. Present petitioner is busy with her own family in the matrimonial home. She is neither beneficiary of any alleged

demand nor could have attained anything out of the matrimonial dispute of respondent No.2 with her husband. False allegations have been levelled against petitioner and other family members to cause them harassment. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that similarly placed co-accused Manjit Kaur sister of the petitioner filed CRM-M-12257-2017 and proceedings qua her in the said FIR were quashed vide order dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P-5). Husband of respondent No.2 is abroad and for this reason present petitioner and other family members were roped in this false FIR. Version put forward by respondent No.2 was not believed by the Investigating Agency, as a result except present petitioner, Manjit Kaur and Chinderpal, all others were declared innocent. It is submitted that registration of present FIR and proceedings pending before the trial Court is gross misuse of the process of law. Therefore, FIR, challan report and chargesheet framed against present petitioner in this case may be quashed by accepting present petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing State referred to the status report confirming the facts narrated in the FIR. It is submitted that Surinder Kaur petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2014 and challan was presented qua her on 21.08.2014. Later-on, Manjit Kaur sister/co-accused was also arrested on 17.08.2015 and supplementary challan was presented and thereafter both of them were charge-sheeted. Two of the prosecution witnesses were examined. At that stage prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Ajay Kumar, Rakesh @ Billu, Ashwani and Rahul as co-accused and the said application was allowed vide order dated 21.03.2017. Specific allegations have been levelled against present

petitioner for causing harassment to the complainant/respondent No.2 for bringing less dowry. She was being forced to leave the matrimonial home and give divorce to her husband Chinder Pal. Petition filed by petitioner is devoid of merits. Therefore, same may be dismissed. 6.

I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Perusal of FIR No.33 dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure P-1) indicates that it was registered on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2 addressed to SSP (Rural), Jalandhar, (Annexure P-4) in which present petitioner sister-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant was arrayed as accused along with others. In the said complaint, she claimed that after marriage she was harassed from time to time. Her husband went abroad. She gave birth to a son out of this wedlock. Her husband did not return back nor provided any maintenance and in return all the accused started threatening her and forced her to give divorce to her husband to which she did not agree. On account of this, she was continuously maltreated in matrimonial home.

So far as Chinder Pal is concerned, he is still abroad and was declared proclaimed offender. Challan was presented against present petitioner, Surinder Kaur along with other sister namely Manjit Kaur. It is matter of record that Manjit Kaur filed petition seeking quashing of FIR in CRM-M12257-2017 which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P5). Perusal of aforesaid order clearly indicates that Manjit Kaur sister of Chinder Pal was residing in Greece for the last so many years and even husband of respondent No.2 stayed with his sister in Greece. Considering the aforesaid factual position, FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed qua Manjit Kaur.

is on different footing. She is residing in India in her matrimonial home in village Mau Sahib, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar whereas matrimonial home of respondent No.2 is village Virk in same Tehsil Phillaur, District Jaladhar. Therefore, allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against present petitioner cannot be brushed aside altogether. Prosecution has to prove its own case by leading evidence and present petitioner/accused Surinder Kaur can take her stand in defence. Allegations levelled by complainant and the role of present petitioner is matter of trial which can be ascertained by appreciating the evidence on record at appropriate stage. 7.

Considering these facts, I do not find it appropriate to quash FIR No.33 dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure P-1), challan report presented against present petitioner (Annexure P-2) or the chargesheet already framed against her (Annexure P-3), accordingly, petition preferred by the petitioner Surinder Kaur is dismissed.

My above observations are made for the disposal of present petition having no bearing on the merits of the trial. ;

(& )

= ;

(& )

= ;

(& )

= ;

(& )

( !

D22$ 3,6E$0

Whether reportable:

Yes/No