HARMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARPAL Singh respondent No. 2 in quashing petition Cr. Misc. No. 3606-M of 1990 reported to the police vide Annexure P. 1 that his son-in-law Harmeet Singh petitioner had deprived his daughter Kanwaljit Kaur of her Stridhan, had been cruel to her all along after marriage; which was solemnised at Ghagga on 9th February, 1988, had brought to her matrimonial home a mistress named Paramjit Kaur during the life time of his married wife and had extended to his daughter Kanwaljit Kaur aforesaid the threat of her life. Case registered by the police on its basis is pending trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana District Ludhiana.

(2.) HUSBAND Harmeet Singh is wanting First Information Report and the proceedings based upon it to be quashed on the grounds that no offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is made out from a reading of the First Information Report and that the averments made therein regarding misappropriation of Stridhan, cruelty and extension of threats of her life to his wife by him are all baseless.

(3.) I have heard Shri A. S. Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner husband, Shri Hari Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 2, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the State and have carefully perused the record.