BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The Appellant, who had all along been appearing in person, was represented by counsel, Mr. Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. M. No. 13709 of 2007, dismissing the Appellants application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S. Patiala, filed by his wife, the Respondent No. 2 herein.

(3.) The Appellants marriage was solemnized with the Respondent No. 2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh rites. After their marriage, the couple went to Gujarat where the Appellant was employed with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband and wife, though no child was born out of the said wedlock. Subsequently, differences arose between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2which resulted in a complaint being made by the Respondent No. 2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting that a criminal case be registered against the Appellant under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to the Womens Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry into the allegations made by the Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant. After such inquiry, the Womens Cell came to the conclusion that even in spite of the periodical differences between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2, they continued to maintain their relationship as husband and wife. From the report it appears that even after she left Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she returned to Gujarat in January 2006, and, thereafter, they visited Mount Abu, Bombay, Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar, and both of them even went to Ambala to attend the retirement function of her mother-in-law, but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala instead of going with the Appellant to the Zirakpur . The Womens Cell also found that the Respondent No. 2 had great love for her parents and as a result she wanted to stay with them more often. Even on the question of dowry, it was found that the entire complaint had been exaggerated and that the Respondent No. 2 was determined to teach her husband and his family members a lesson by levelling serious allegations against them. The ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Womens Cell was that nothing had come out from the inquiry to prove the demand of dowry and issuance of threat, and that the dispute was of a civil nature which did not call for any action by the local police at the said stage.