RADHE MOHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing first Information Report No.106 dated July 8, 1989, under Sections 406, 498 -A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana. The present petitioner Radhe Mohan, who is arrayed as accused No.8 in the first Information Report is stated to be the brother -in -law of accused No. 1., i.e., the husband of the victim Bindu, daughter of the complainant. Notice was issued in this case and the reply has been filed on behalf of the stated by way of preliminary objection that the petitioner alone with others had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1963 -M of 1990 which had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated May 22, 1990. A rejoinder has been filed in which an attempt has been made to get across the objection taken by the respondent by stating that subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order the complainant himself, i.e., Ram Lobhaya had retracted from the statement given in the First Information Report and further that the cross examination of Bindu the dowry victim had also not been recorded on that day. It has also been urged that as the earlier petition in this Court had been filed by the petitioner and several others, the second petition on behalf of the petitioner alone was fully competent.

(2.) I have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel for the State and find that the petition cannot succeed. Admittedly, the case was at the stage of trial when further proceedings in the trial Court qua the petitioner were stayed by this Court vide order dated April 27, 1993. Moreover, even assuming for a moment that Ram Lobhaya had not supported the prosecution at the trial yet the examination -in -chief of Bindu appended as Annexure P -1 to this petition clearly indicates the involvement of the petitioner. To my mind therefore a second petition seeking the relief that had been sought in the first proceedings and which had been declined by this Court on may 22, 1990, cannot be given to the petitioner in the present proceedings.

(3.) THERE is, thus, no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.