NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.427 dtd. 25/12/2020 registered under Ss. 323, 34, 342, 498-A and 506 of IPC at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, challan report filed under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. as well as the order dtd. 20/7/2021 whereby charges have been framed by the learned trial Court against him and all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

(2.) Brief facts relevant of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint filed by the respondent No.2-Luxmi alleging therein that she was married with the petitioner. He along with his mother used to physically assault her. She was mentally as well as physically tortured by them on account of demand of dowry. Threats were extended to her to get a divorce from the petitioner. Even other members of her in-laws family used to behave very rudely with her. She alleged that now she was four months pregnant and even on the day of lodging of FIR, she was physically assaulted by her in-laws thereby endangering the life of the child in her womb as well. She also alleged that all her jewellery had been misappropriated by her mother-in-law. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petitioner had been extended benefit of bail. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against him and presently, he is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 323, 34, 342, 498-A and 506 of IPC.

(3.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR, challan report, charge sheet framed against him and the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is facing gamut of trial since long. Infact, it was the respondent No.2, who had left her matrimonial house in October 2020, at her own and had started residing at her parental house. He had even filed a petition under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights but the respondent No.2 had not even care to appear in that petition and filed false case as against him. It is also submitted that now he has come to know that respondent No.2 is having extra marital relation with one Chetan Sharma and the said Chetan Sharma is even stated to have been claiming that the female child born to the respondent No.2 was out of his loins. It is argued that the allegations on the face of record do not make out any case for commission of offences for which he has been booked and challaned and, therefore, it is argued that his petition deserves to be allowed. The proceedings has initiated against him as well as the FIR deserve to be quashed.