REENA KUMRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by Reena Kumra, i.e. sister-in-law/Jethani of respondent No.2- complainant Shweta Kumra (Devrani), is for quashing of FIR No.56, dated 04.04.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar, and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, being the abuse of process of law.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Reena Kumra, the petitioner, alongwith her husband was residing in a separate accommodation than that of complainant Shweta Kumra; marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 12.09.1997 at Jalandhar; the petitioner is a teacher in a private College; the marriage of respondent No.2-complainant was solemnized with Vishal Kumra on 07.04.2003 at Mathura; there was a dispute between Shweta Kumra and Vishal Kumra and, as such the complainant started residing separately and after sometime she left India and went to United Kingdom and stayed there for about 2 1/2 years. He further submitted that in the year 2010, the husband of respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from her (respondent No.2). A petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed by respondent No.2-complainant seeking maintenance from her husband Vishal Kumra. The petitioner and her husband had never demanded dowry from respondent No.2-complainant. The impugned FIR was got registered as a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the husband of the complainant which is a gross abuse of the process of law and, as such, is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 45; Anguri Devi etc. vs State of Punjab etc., 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 431; Rakesh Kumar and others vs State of Punjab and others, 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 565; Smt.Rani vs State of Haryana, 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 985; Divya alias Babli and others vs State of Haryana and another, 2006 4 RCR(Cri) 322; Ramesh and others vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 2 RCR(Cri) 68; Kamaljit Singh vs State of Punjab, 2004 1 RCR(Cri) 321; Harjinder Kaur and others vs State of Punjab, 2004 4 RCR(Cri) 332; Sher Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, 2002 3 RCR(Cri) 539; and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 761.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Mikhail Kad, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, as well as Mr.Rajinder Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant vehemently opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there were specific allegations of maltreatment and harassment of respondent No.2-complainant for and on account of demand of dowry. They further submitted that initially the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, but during investigation Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were also added and the petitioner has not filed this petition for quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom for the additional offences. They further pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and, as such, the proceedings cannot be terminated qua her merely on the ground that she is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the complainant. They further submitted that in case the petitioner is able to make out a case before the learned trial Court, then she might be discharged after scanning the whole material. In support of their contentions they have placed reliance on Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs Monica and others, 2014 1 RCR(Cri) 987 and Minakshi Bala vs Sudhir Kumar and others, 1994 4 SCC 142.