High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/30893/2014dismissed

Puneet Chawla & ORS v. Ut Of Chandigarh & ANR

2015-09-24Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain3 pages

[1] In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-30893-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.09.2015 Puneet Chawla and others

...Petitioners

Versus

U.T. Chandigarh and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. K.V. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Sukant Gupta, APP, U.T.

***** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.518, dated 28.11.2007, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Janak Puri, West Delhi and summoning order dated 16.07.2014.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant got married to petitioner No.1 on 25th May, 1995. At the time of marriage of the complainant, her parents had spent about `18,00,000-20,00,000/- Complainant had been harassed by the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 used to give beatings to the complainant under the influence of liquor. Complainant gave

[2] birth to a daughter in the year 1997. The attitude of the petitioners became hostile towards the complainant after the birth of the female child. Complainant was turned out of the house in Delhi by her mother-in-law and thereafter the complainant went to her parental home. Then, after a week's stay at her parental home, complainant came to Chandigarh to live with her husband. However, complainant was given beatings by her husband and she was got admitted in the hospital in Sector-16, Chandigarh. Petitioners had raised demand of cash, car, flat and finances for business and household expenses from the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR in question had been filed after filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner No.1. Vague allegations had been levelled against the petitioners by the complainant in the FIR. Learned counsel for the Administration, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that after the framing of charges, the case is pending before the trial Court for recording of prosecution or otherwise. In the present case complainant has levelled allegations of cruelty and harassment against the petitioners and has also alleged that dowry was being demanded from her. It is further the case of the complainant that she had been given beatings by the accused.

[3] During the course of arguments, it has transpired that so far as petitioner No.2 to 5 are concerned, their personal appearance has already been exempted by the trial Court during trial.

Keeping in view the allegations levelled against the petitioners, no ground for quashing of FIR in question and summoning order dated 16.07.2014, is made out. Petitioners would be at liberty to take up all pleas available to them before the trial Court during trial.

Dismissed.

September 24, 2015 (SABINA) kapil JUDGE