Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition, filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 225 dated 29.06.2006, u/s 326, IPC, registered at Police Station, City, Moga. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had a love affair with Ms. Maninder Kaur Gaba and they performed their marriage on 26.8.2003 as per Hindu rites at Chamba in Himachal Pradesh. Respondent No. 2, who is aunt of Ms. Maninder Kaur Gaba, was nourishing a grudge against the petitioner and as such lodged a false and frivolous complaint against him disclosing the offence punishable u/s 323 read with Section 34, IPC.

Later, the contents of the said complaint were found to be false by the police. Thereafter, on 11.5.2006, the respondent again moved a false and frivolous complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, with the averments that on 22.9.2005, the petitioner had quarreled with her (respondent No. 2 ) as a result of which her teeths were broken. Resultantly, the present FIR was registered, which is a sheer abuse of the process of law. He further submits that without proper investigation, the report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. was filed and even the learned trial court without taking care of the fact that no prima facie case was made out, framed the charge u/s 326, IPC against the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2006 and ordered for recording of the prosecution evidence, therefore, the FIR and the consequential proceedings may be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the charges were framed by the learned trial court on 01.10.2006. The prosecution has already examined four witnesses. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the subsequent investigation clearly established the involvement of the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable u/s 326, IPC, therefore, no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material available on record. Whatever has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are disputed questions of fact, which are to be decided by the learned trial court. The charge for commission of the offence punishable u/s 326, IPC was framed and thereafter, the prosecution had already examined the four witnesses. Even otherwise, after perusal of the contents of the FIR, a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner is made out. Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.