Smt. Santosh and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 1131 dated 24.12.2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The present petition has been filed on behalf of Santosh wife of Rajinder - petitioner No. 1, who is the sister-in-law of the complainants and Mana Devi wife of late Shri Ram Kumar - petitioner No. 2, who is the mother of the husband of the complainants.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition qua petitioner No. 2.

Accordingly, the present petition qua petitioner No. 2 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No. 1- Santosh, is the daughter of Ram Kumar and is married with Rajinder. Her marriage took place on 17.09.1980. Since then, she is residing at her matrimonial home at Village Budha Khera Lather, Tehsil Julala, District Jind, Haryana. Whereas, the marriage of Anil Kumar, who is brother of petitioner No. 1, took place with Usha Rani daughter of Pritam Manmohan Singh and the second brother of petitioner No. 1 was married to Asha Rani. Their marriage were solemnised on 06.03.2005 at Prem Nagar, Sirsa according to Hindu rites. It is further contended that after solemnisation of the marriage, both the spouses started residing together as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock of Anil and Usha Rani, one daughter named Tannu was born on 10.12.2005 at Bhiwani and no issue was born from the wedlock of Manmohan and Asha Rani. Both the spouses had been living a happy married life and there had been no complaint of any kind from any side.

It is contended that the age of petitioner No. 1 is 45 years and she is residing with her husband in her matrimonial home at Jind. She is the married sister of the husbands of the complainants. She has nothing to do with the family affairs of the complainants.

A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations are general in nature. The accused have been referred as "all". The allegations are vague. There is no specific allegations levelled against petitioner No. 1.

It is well known that while filing a case u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the entire family and relatives of the husband are enroped. Even the married sister-in-law is not exempted. The present case is a case of similar nature. The petitioner No. 1 was married way back in the year 1980, whereas, the marriage of the present complainant took place in the year 2005. The petitioner No. 1 is almost 45 years of age and is residing happily in her matrimonial home at Village Budha Khera Lather, Tehsil Julana, District Jind, whereas, the complainants are residing at Sirsa.

In the similar facts and circumstances, this Court in the case of Ranbir Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, quashed the FIR by relying on the Judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported as 1991 (1) RCR (Crl.) 383 as well as on the Judgment of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported as 1988 (1) RCR (Crl) 565 and after taking into consideration the para 7 of the said Judgment, quashed the proceedings. The para 7 of the Judgment of Madhavrao Jiwajirao ''s (supra) reads as under:

The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution, at the initial state, is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also, quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

In the present case also, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. There is nothing to show as to what was specifically demanded from the petitioner. Allegations are vague. Enroping of the married sister of the husband of the complainant- petitioner No. 1 who is staying in her matrimonial home at Jind for the last about 15 years before marriage of the complainants with her brothers is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Thus, taking into account the well settled proposition of law as well as the facts of the present case, the continuation of the proceedings qua petitioner No. 1 is a sheer misuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, FIR No. 1131 dated 24.12.2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed qua petitioner No. 1 - Santosh.