ANITA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Anita, petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 dated 8.1.1997, registered under Sections 498-A, 506 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, City Phagwara.

(2.) RAHUL was married to Renu, respondent No. 2 on 7.5.1994. As the marriage went into rough weather, Rahul filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against his wife Renu on 10.12.1996. Renu in turn lodged First Information Report referred to above against Rahul and six other persons including the petitioner. She also filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in the Court at Phagwara on 10.2.1997. Later the parties with the intervention of relations compromised and it was decided that the case be withdrawn and a joint petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Act was filed. Divorce was granted on 2.2.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other accused sought quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara on the basis of First Information Report lodged by Renu. It was stated in the petition that the petitioner had given power of attorney for quashing of the petition but her name could not be included in the main petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. 9167-M of 1998 due to inadvertent mistake and for that reason proceedings qua her could not be quashed. It was also stated in the petition that Anita is the married sister of Rahul. It has also been stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition for quashing of the FIR vide Criminal Misc. No. 35040-M of 1998 but as respondent No. 2 could not be served, as her whereabouts were not known, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after receipt of correct address. Subsequently, when respondent No. 2 started residing in her parents house, at the address mentioned in the petition, the present petition was filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.