RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of the complaint dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure P1); the order dated 6.9.1999 (Annexure P2) whereby charges were framed; as well as the order dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure P3), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the revision petition filed by the Petitioners against the order framing charges against them, was dismissed.

(2.) PETITIONERS Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers of Puran Chand got married to Rani Devi -complainant, Respondent No. 2 on 3.6.1994. As they could not pull together, their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. However, during the inter Regulation, the complainant (Rani Devi) filed criminal complaint dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure P1), in which apart from her husband and mother -in -law the Petitioners were also named as accused. The aforesaid complaint was directed to be investigated by the police, vide order dated 29.6.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, FIR No. 285 dated 29.6.1991, under Sections 406, 498 -A IPC was registered by PS City Kaithal, in which charges under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the Petitioners as well on 6.9.1999 (Annexure P2). Aggrieved at framing of the charges the Petitioners preferred a revision petition which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide one of the impugned orders, dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure P3).

(3.) IN support of the prayer in this petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that the allegations against the Petitioner in the complaint (Annexure P1) are totally vague and wild since no specific instances of either misappropriation of the complainant's istri dhan and/or causing any harassment to her for not bringing sufficient dowry are attributed to the Petitioners, therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is, thus, liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed by him upon two judgments of this Court reported as Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab,, 2001 (4) RCR (Cri) 394 (SC) and Prabhdeep Singh v. Sukhwinder Kaur,, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 92 (P&H). He has also referred to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others,, 2005 (3) RCR (Cri) 745 (SC).