Usha Rani vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J.

By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made that FIR No. 669 dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P. 1) registered under Sections 498A/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak be quashed.

As per averments made in the petition, the marriage between Chanchal Bala respondent No. 2 and Harish Chander took place at Rohtak on 10th February, 1991. The parties cohabited till September, 1991, when respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home. On 4th March, 1992, Harish Chander filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights but on agreement having been reached between the contesting parties on 27th March, 1992, Chanchal Bala returned to the matrimonial home. It appears that as the parties could not pull on well she once again left the husband''s residence and it was thereafter on 4th September, 1992 that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce was filed by the husband Harish Chander. First Information Report Annexure P1 which has been impugned in these proceedings was lodged on 24th December, 1992.

Mr. Virender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that petitioners 2 and 4 who are brothers of Harish Chander and petitioners 1 and 3 are their wives, were living separately from the couple and a bare reading of the first information report Annexure P. 1 would indicate that no allegations had been made against them. He has brought to my notice paras 2 and 4 of the first information report in question. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has however, urged that the first information report was not required to be an encyclopedia of all the facts as the facts were to be fully stated during the course of recording of evidence and if there is some lacuna in recording of the first information report, it could not be fatal to the prosecution case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on records.

If paras 2 and 4 of Annexure P. 1 are read comulatively, there are specific allegations of cruelty and entrustment against the motherinlaw Krishna Wati and the brothers Chander Parkash and Yash Pal, but as far as Usha Rani and Kanwal Rani petitioners are concerned there is only a sweeping reference in paragraph 2. As a matter of fact the primary allegations made against the accused are in paragraph 2 of the first information report in question and in this paragraph there is no allegation against petitioners 1 and 3. It is, therefore, apparent that even on the facts stated in the complaint Annexure P. 1, no case is made out against petitioners 1 and 3. This petition is therefore partly allowed and the first information report (Annexure P. 1) and consequent proceedings are hereby, quashed qua petitioners 1 and 3, whereas the petition with respect to other petitioners is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the presence of petitioners 2, 4 and 5 i.e. Chander Parkash, Yash Pal and Smt. Krishna Wati is exempted during the trial before the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.