AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts necessary for the disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) are as follows :

(2.) SMT. Balwinder Kaur, Private respondent No. 2, was married to Harminder Singh petitioner No. 3, on February 13, 1987. According to Smt. Balwinder Kaur, she was harassed on account of inadequate dowry and on her failure to comply with the demand for more dowry put forward from time to time, she was ultimately turned out of the house. She sent a complaint to the SSP under Section 154 (3) of the Code. On the basis of the said complaint, first information report was entered on July 13, 1987, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and various other relations of the husband. Crl. Misc. No. 9617-M of 1989 was filed in this Court, seeking quashing of the said first information report. By order dated November 21, 1989, it was held that there was no justification for continuing the proceedings against Amar Kaur, Harinder Pal Singh and Swaran Singh. The proceedings against them were quashed. The proceedings, however, were to continue according to law against Avtar Singh, Gian Kaur and the husband Harminder Singh. In spite of the said order regarding the remaining accused, two applications were made before the JM1c, seized of the case, on April 19, 1990, and April 20, 1990, seeking discharge from the case based on the report under Section 173 of the Code represented by the police after investigation of the case in the above noted first information report. The learned Magistrate dismissed both the applications on July 18, 1990 by order Annexure P-l dated August 6, 1990. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the aforesaid accused i. e. Avtar Singh, Gian Kaur and Harminder Singh under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused preferred a revision against the order. The same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by order Annexure P-2 dated November 9, 1990. Thereafter the present petition for quashing the proceedings has been filed by the same three accused.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the absence of necessary particulars with regard to the time, place and manner in which various acts of alleged cruelty were committed, there was no case justifying framing a charge and, in any case, the charge framed by the Court was vague-and the accused could not possibly defend themselves and continuance of such proceedings was an abuse of the process of Court and the order framing the charge as also the order affirming the same in revision deserved to be quashed.