RINOO SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of First Information Report No. 64 dated January 28, 1986, recorded against them at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, as also the charge framed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on February 6, 1986, in pursuance thereof.

(2.) A marriage between the first petitioner Rinoo Sehgal and Smt. Vandana, respondent No. 2. was performed on November 30, 1984, at Ludhiana, were the parents of respondent No. 2 are residing. Rinoo Sehgal was then residing in Germany and was on a visit to Ludhiana at that time where his sister Rekha Trehan, petitioner No. 3, was running a Beauty Parlour. The Second petitioner, Kamla Sehgal, is the mother of the other two petitioners. The respondent, Smt. Vandana, lodged the impugned first information report at Police Station Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on January 28, 1986, alleging that after her marriage with the petitioner Rinoo Sehgal, the latter left for Germany on December 8, 1983 and she joined him later in that country in January 1984. On arrival in Germany, she came to know that her husband was keeping a mistress named Anna Maria Holo Painen. The relations between husband and wife became strained and eventually the respondent Smt. Vandana was compelled to return to India in April 1984. Subsequently, the husband Rinoo Sehgal also came to India in the month of May 1984 and then towards the end of June, 1984 he along with the other petitioners, gathering at Ludhiana, compelled the parents of the respondent to part with Rs. 50,000/-. The wife was further compelled to hand over her jewellary to the petitioners which the latter sold for Rs. 75,000/-. Later on the respondent was further harassed by the petitioners and they forced her to give him Rs. 52,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioners had been continuously harassing the respondent with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their unlawful demands for money and when ultimately the respondent and her parents were unwilling to oblige them further, they gave her a beating on December 21, 1984. On these allegations a case under section 498-A/34, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the petitioners vide the impugned first information report. After the completion of investigation by the Police, the petitioners were challaned and they are facing trial under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The trial Court framed a charge under this section against them on February 6, 1986.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is pre-mature because the falsity or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the respondent against the petitioners is yet to be ascertained by the trial Court. It is well-settled that for the purpose of exercising its power under section 482 of the Cope of Criminal Procedure to quash a first information report this Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made therein. The Court at this stage has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. The only point for consideration presently is whether the allegations in the first information report disclose the commission of an offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. This section reads as under :-