SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of FIR No. 369 dated July 1, 2005 under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Act, Police Station Sadar Patiala, registered at the instance of Ruldu Singh, alleging that his daughter Raj Kaur was married about 8 years prior to the lodging of the FIR to the petitioner. There is a son aged 7 years born out of the wedlock. The petitioner is employed in a factory at Bahadurgarh. He is married twice. His first wife has obtained divorce from him and she has got a daughter who his being paid maintenance through Court. After two years of his marriage, the petitioner started harassing his wife for having brought insufficient dowry. Sometimes he used to turn her out of the house but complainant being a poor man again used to leave his daughter in the house of the petitioner with the intervention of the Panchayat. The petitioner had three plots one of the plots is 213 yards usable for shops. As the first wife wanted to get her share in the said property, therefore, the petitioner had transferred his property in the name of daughter of the complainant. The petitioner had started living with a girl of Village Alipur. He gave beatings to the daughter of the complainant. In the month of July 2004, he gave severe beatings to his daughter and forcibly made her to consume acid. He had threatened to leave his wife and forcibly take away the son. His daughter had been maltreated by the mother of the petitioner as well as other family members.

(2.) THIS petition was ordered to be heard alongwith Crl. Misc. No. M-39016 of 2006 vide order dated February 12, 2007, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is pertinent to observe that the said petition is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed in favour of the wife and son of the petitioner. The said petition has been dismissed vide a separate order.

(3.) A perusal of annexure P-5 indicates that the petitioner had given date of marriage as September 30, 1996 in his petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act but respondent No.2 has clarified that marriage had taken place on September 30, 1998 and not on September 30, 1996. Date of birth of the child is neither mentioned by the petitioner in the petition under Section 11 of the Act nor in the reply.