NIDHI KAKKAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek quashing of the FIR No. 59 dated 16.4.2010 registered at Police Station Division No. 7, Jalandhar for offence punishable under Sections 452/323 read with Section 34 IPC, at the instance of respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE FIR got registered by Gulshan Raj Kakkar (respondent No. 2), Annexure P/1, is as follows : -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that FIR in question is the result of matrimonial feud between the petitioner No. 1 Nidhi Kakkar and her husband Manish Kakkar son of respondent No. 2. Due to strained relations, the petitioner No. 1 had got an FIR under Sections 406/498 -A IPC, bearing No. 215 dated 17.8.2005 registered against her husband, her mother -in -law, father -in -law (respondent No. 2 herein) and other relatives of respondent No. 2 which is pending trial. Manish Kakkar husband of petitioner No. 1 filed a divorce petition, in which divorce was allowed but in appeal, petition filed by son of respondent No. 2 has been dismissed. The wife of respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against petitioner No. 1 levelling wild and false allegations. The petitioner No. 1 has sought quashing of the said complaint by filing CRM -M -25627 of 2009 which is pending in this Court. A complaint was also filed by the maternal uncle of husband of petitioner NO. 1 under Section 500 IPC and the complainant -respondent No. 2 has filed CRM -M -10439 of 2010 seeking quashing of the same which is also pending in this Court. The matrimonial feud has also resulted in other litigation between the parties and the instant FIR is also an out come of the same. The petitioner No. 1 has moved an application to the police on 10.5.2010 giving detailed facts about the occurrence along with her MLR but the police after ignoring the real facts has not taken any action against respondent No. 2. The police has registered FIR after a lapse of one month and eleven days. The statement to the police was made by the respondent No. 2 after consulting his advocate/legal adviser. The petitioner No. 2 has been implicated in this case as he treats the petitioner No. 1 as his 'Dharam sister'.