SURINDER SINGH PURBA Vs. STATE OF UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition, is under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing F. I. R. No. 361 of 1990 dated 11. 9. 19 0 under Section 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, being an abuse of the process of the Court and lodged with malafide intention by Smt. Harinder Pal Kaur respondent No. 2 During the pendency of this petition a report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. was presented against the petitioners in Court. A prayer was then made to place copy of the report on record which was allowed. The petitioner then prayed for quashing this report as well.

(2.) THE first information report was recorded on the statement of Harinder Pal Kaur dated 11. 9. 1990 which was recorded by Shri P. K. Sharma, Executive Magistrate, when Harinder Pal Kaur was admitted to General Hospital as a case of poisoning. In this statement she alleged that she was married to Savinder Singh about two years earlier and her husband did not treat her properly. She and her husband had taken, separate residence in May 1990, as when she was living with her in-laws they too treated her in a cruel manner and often subjected her to beating. Even when she was living separately her in-laws threatened her that they will not allow her to live with their son. Under depression she look some tablets. On the basis of this statement a case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was registered aganist the husband and the present petitioners who are the fatrher-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Investigation in the case was conducted and then offences under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners was that after sometime of the marriage of their son with the complainant they found that the complainant was not a mentally balanced lady and she was unable to adjust in the family atmosphere. She threatened to implicate them in some false case and to commit suicide. She even did not spare her husband and tortured him. They had been reporting these incidents to the police from time to time and ultimately sensing toruble they separated their son and the complainant on 27. 8. 1989 through Istri Sabha and all articles of Istri Dhan were handed over to the complainant vide Annexure P/4. The complainant first lived with her husband in House No. 3108, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and then in House No. 3091, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. They were not entrusted with any dowry articles nor they were having any such articles in their possession. As they were living separately from the complainant since August, 1989, there was no question of treating the complainant with cruelty. They were falsely involved in the case. There was no prima facie case against them and the first information report as well as the report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. were liable to be quashed being an abuse of the process, of the Court.