GULSHAN NISCHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 60 dated 1.8.2014 registered under Sections 498-A IPC, Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar City (Annexure P-1) and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 has placed some documents on the file which are taken on record.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he is the uncle of the husband. Giving the relationship it has been pleaded that Arun (co-accused) was the son of the brother of the petitioner. Sunita was married to Arun in June 2011. The petitioner alleges that no specific role has been attributed to him and he has been named just to harass and victimize the entire family and no article was entrusted to him nor he was a beneficiary and had been falsely implicated. It was pleaded that the petitioner was living in house No. 282, Ward No. 10, Garden Colony, Mission Road, Pathankot and the co-accused were living separately. It was explained that this was the ancestral house but he had purchased it. The petitioner had also annexed the Aadhar cards of all the accused including himself. The petitioner claimed that the complainant had given 4-5 complaints to the police earlier but compromises were effected but later on they backed out from the compromise and these facts are mentioned in the complaint. It was pleaded that he was not even present when the compromise was effected and the dispute was between the husband and wife and his implication was an abuse of process of law. It was pleaded that the husband had filed divorce petition and the wife failed to appear and ex parte decree of divorce was passed and the complainant had filed an application for setting aside the decree.