SURAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No. 170 dated 05.10.2008 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Noormahal, District Jalandhar, as well as, charges framed on 11.08.2009 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom against petitioner who is Massi (maternal aunt).

(2.) Brief facts of the case as put forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an aged widow lady and is resident of Basti Gujjan, Jalandhar. She is residing with her family and they are separate in household from her sister Kiran Bala i.e. the mother-in-law of the complainant-respondent No. 2. The sister of the petitioner, namely, Kiran Bala (mother-in-law of respondent No. 2) is a resident of Village Sawhni, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, whereas, the petitioner is resident of Basti Gujjan, Jalandhar and there is a distance of about 40-50 kms. between the houses of the petitioner and her sister Kiran Bala. On 21.11.2005, petitioner's sister son Vishal @ Happy married to respondent No. 2 i.e. Sandeep Kumari @ Pallavi daughter of Harmesh Lal resident of Village Rajowal, Police Station Noormehal, District Jalandhar as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Basant Palace, Noormahal. Being the relative of Vishal, petitioner attended the marriage of respondent No. 2. After the marriage, Vishal left for abroad so that he could earn a better livelihood for himself and for respondent No. 2. After departure of Vishal for Dubai, the respondent No. 2 and Vishal remained in contact with each other through phones and internet callings. Vishal started trying his level best efforts by which he could be able to get visa for respondent No. 2 to Dubai so that respondent No. 2 and Vishal could live together at Dubai. But due to delay or some unforeseen reasons, not to the knowledge of petitioner, some misconceptions arose between Vishal and respondent No. 2, and they started hot exchange arguments with each other on telephone. Lateron, the said exchanged words resulted into developing temperamental difference between Vishal and respondent No. 2. When all that was happening between Vishal and respondent No. 2, the petitioner was residing with her family at Jalandhar and she was not aware of any fact regarding personal disputes of Vishal and respondent No. 2.

(3.) However the case put up by the respondent and the allegations in the FIR, are:-