USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made that FIR No. 669 dated 24.12.92 (Annexure P.1) registered under Section 498- A/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak be quashed.

(2.) As per averments made in the petition, the marriage between Chanchal Bala respondent No.2 and Harish Chander took place at Rohtak on 10th February, 1991. The parties cohabited till September, 1991, when respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home. On 4th March, 1992, Harish Chander med a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights but on agreement having been reached between the contesting parties on 27th March, 1992, Chanchal Bala returned to the matrimonial home. It appears that as the parties could not pull on well she once again left the husbandTs residence and it was thereafter on 4th September, 1992 that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce was filed by the husband Harish Chander. First Information Report Annexure P.1 which has been impugned in these proceedings was lodged on 24th December, 1992.

(3.) Mr. Virender Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that petitioners 2 and 4 who are brothers of Harish Chander and petitioners 1 and 3 are their wives, were living separately from the couple and a bare reading of the First Information Report Annexure P.1 would indicate that no allegations had been made against them. He has brought to my notice paras 2 and 4 of the First Information Report in question. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has, however, urged that the First Information Report was not required to be an encyclopedia of all the facts as the fads were to be fully stated during the course of recording of evidence and if there is some lacuna in recording of the First Information Report, it could not be fatal to the prosecution case.