AMIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused for quashing F.I.R. No. 18 dated 12-4-1993, under sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Police Station, City Fazilka and all other proceedings arising out of the same. The said F.I.R. is at Annexure P/4.

(2.) According to the complainant i.e., respondent No. 2, the petitioners represented to respondent No. 2 and other witnesses on 22-4-1992 to the effect that they should depose in their favour to get the complaint under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code dismissed and the petitioners will rehabilitate Saroj Kumari wife of Surinder Kumar who is son of petitioner No. 3 and that they will not demand any dowry. It is contended that on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioners, respondent No. 2 did not support the complaint and made a statement that other witnesses have been won over and got the complaint dismissed. However, the petitioners did not fulfill their promise and did not rehabilitate Saroj Kumari in the house and, therefore, she filed complaint against the petitioners upon which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged.

(3.) The earlier complaint was filed by Behari Lal Bharti who was husband of respondent No. 2 against petitioner Nos. 4 to 8 and four others for the offences under sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The same was challenged under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 1478 M of 1991 by the accused. This court held that the allegations levelled in the complaint made out a criminal offence against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and it also held that the truthfulness thereof has to be decided after the recording of evidence. The case then proceeded before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Fazilka against the said two accused. It is mentioned in the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Fazilka. Annexure P/3 that the proceedings against the other accused were quashed and during the pendency of the proceedings, complainant Behari Lal died and vide order dated 16-12-1991 he was substituted by Sumitra Devi i.e. present respondent No. 2. He discharged the said remaining accused vide order dated 22-4-1992. Thereafter the impugned complaint Annexure P/4 was filed. A perusal of Annexure P/4 shows that the complaint was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Fazilka and it was sent to S.H.O. Police Station, City Fazilka for registration of the case and, therefore, the impugned FIR happens to be registered.