ASHWANI BHATIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No. 160 dated 13.09.2009 under Sections 376, 494 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala.

(2.) The facts, in short, as stated, are that the petitioner was a draftsman and was running a firm by the name of Ashwani Bhatia & Associates. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, was having a diploma of architect. She had done her graduation from S.D. College, Ambala Cantt. and, thereafter, completed three years diploma in Architect from Government Polytechnic, Sirsa. She also established her own consultancy under the name and style of "Architect Den". Subsequently, the petitioner came in contact with respondent No. 2 in connection with job which was supposed to have been assigned to respondent No. 2. The petitioner continued to visit at her shop in view of the business interest. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 closed her business establishment and started working with the petitioner. Admittedly, an intimacy developed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the petitioner even invited respondent No. 2 on the marriages of his brothers Rinku and Kishan. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 accompanied the petitioner to various guest houses at Chandigarh, Kurukshetra, Jammu and Srinagar. It is also admitted that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as per Hindu Marriage Rites and Ceremonies on 05.09.2005 in the presence of all the relatives and friends. They even went to Goa for their Honeymoon. They visited Nander, Vaishno Devi and Kalahasti Chennai. Thereafter, on things having turned sour, on account of one reason or the other, the present FIR was registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Sections 376, 494 and 506 IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while praying for quashing of the said FIR, submitted that the petitioner was running a firm under the name of Ashwani Bhatia and associates and having office at his home which is House No. 545, Old Housing Board, Sector 13, Karnal and the respondent No. 2/complainant was admittedly working with him in his Office. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant was not aware of his earlier marriage. Secondly, now she is running her own firm with the name and style of "Creative Arch" and she is a proprietor of this firm. She is now in professional rivalry with the petitioner. Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married and, therefore, Section 376 IPC was not made out against the petitioner and Section 494 IPC can be pleaded only by the first wife.