AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Chowdhri, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. (Annexure P1) dated November 23, 1988, under Section 498A/406/109 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ambala City.
The relevant facts are that Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, respondent No. 2 was married to Pargat Singh on April 2, 1988. Jasbir Kaur, petitioner No. 1 and Surinder Kaur, petitioner No. 2, are the real sisters of Pargat Singh. The others named in the F.I.R. are Bag Singh, father of Pargat Singh, Jit Kaur, mother of Pargat Singh, Dalbir Singh brother of Pargat Singh and Kulwant Kaur wife of Dalbir Singh.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, appears to have sent the complaint made by Kulwant Kaur, respondent No. 2, to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police registered the aforesaid FIR. Jasbir Kaur and Surinder Kaur have filed the said petition for quashing the same on the ground that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court if they were tried for the offences. The principal ground taken in the petition is that Jasbir Kaur was married fifteen years ago and Surinder Kaur was married about seven years earlier and they are residing happily with their respective husbands. The next main ground in the petition, is that there were hardly any averments made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. and whatever averments were made against them did not add up to an offence of abetment.
The return has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala on behalf of the State. The allegation that the petitioners were married about fifteen years and seven years prior to the material period, has not been specifically denied. In fact, in the case of Surinder Kaur it is admitted that she is married to Charan Singh and has a child from her marriage.
In so far as the offence under Section 406 in concerned, there is absolutely no allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioners. In so far as the offence under Section 498A is concerned, the allegations against the petitioners are as follows :
... That at the time of the second visit of the complainant to the matrimonial home, the two petitioners told their brother i.e. Pargat Singh to desert the complainant and to get married second time so that he could get a Maruti car in that marriage. They also told their brother that they would arrange for such a match where the inlaws would be in a position to give a Maruti car. The rest of the allegations relate to the remaining accused.
I am aware that the allegations made in the F.I.R. have to be broadly accepted as true for purposes of a petition of the present nature under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even so, there is no rule of the thumb that whatever has been stated in the F I.R. has to be accepted as gospel truth even if it is altogether unacceptable to common sense.
Ultimately, even after trial the Courts decide the cases by applying the wellknown test of humanprobability. It bears repetition that both the petitioners were married long before the marriage in question. In the totality of facts and circumstances, therefore, the chances of conviction of the petitioners are highly remote. It is well known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relations of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case I am, therefore, satisfied that it will be an abuse of the process of the Court to permit the prosecution of the petitioners. The prosecution against two petitioners is hereby quashed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on April 12, 1990.