HAZURA SINGH Vs. JASPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition that has been filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge the complaint No.2350 of 2015 dated 15/16.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the summoning order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) In brief, the facts are that a marriage between respondent No.1 and Charanjit Rai, who is reflected as proforma respondent in the present proceedings, was solemnized on 22/11/2004 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at Ludhiana and out of the wedlock, two children were born, namely Meharpreet Kaur and Sidakveer Singh, on 26/12/2005 and 28/11/2013 respectively. In the complaint, it was alleged that parents of the complainant, respondent No.1 had spent a huge amount on the marriage as per the demands made, but her in-laws i.e. petitioners herein were not satisfied with the dowry given and she was ill-treated by them. As the matter was not settled, complaint came to be filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which detailed the harassment meted out to her. Aggrieved against the summoning order, petitioners namely Hazura Singh, father-in-law, Parminder Kaur, mother-in-law and Devinder Singh, brother-in-law have preferred the instant quashing petition on the ground that allegations as set out in the complaint are patently false and not sustainable.

(3.) Mr Aalok Jagga ,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein argues that petitioner No.2, Parminder Kaur is suffering from a chronic disease of Lymphocytic Leukemia i.e. blood cancer since the year 2012 and is suffering from rheumatic heart disease and therefore, is not in a position to either mentally or physically torture respondent No.1. It is submitted that the complainant was residing happily with her husband in a different locality i.e. they were residing at House No.15, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Roopnagar and thereafter at House No.136, Lakhwindra Enclave, Near Green Palace, Roopnagar and therefore, were not joint in residence. It is further argued that respondent No.1 had initially filed a complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roopnagar and has also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce, however, the same was withdrawn by her and she had also sworn in an affidavit dated 22.11.2011 stating that all allegations levelled by her against her husband and his family members in the petitions filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C were false and baseless.