BADRI NATH PEER AND OTHERS Vs. SIMI PEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition filed under Sec. 561-A Crimial P.C. petitioners seek quashing of the complaint filed against the petitioners by respondent under Sections 498-A, 504 and 120-B RPC along with the proceedings taken on the said private complaint, pending disposal before the Court of learned Sub- Judge/Railway Magistrate, Jammu.

(2.) In this petition, it has been stated that order of cognizance is incorrect because marriage took place in 1994 and complaint has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. after more than 13 years. It is stated that entire family of the petitioners has been involved in the complaint. That petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 have nothing to do with the allegation levelled in the complaint. That no substantial allegation has been levelled against the accused persons. That it is the respondent who has deserted the husband and after desertion she has filed petition under Sec. 488 Crimial P.C. in which Rs.1,500.00 per head maintenance has been granted because the respondent was having one minor daughter also at the time of filing of petition under Sec. 488 Cr.P.C. That in order to further pressurize the petitioners, a false and baseless complaint has been lodged against them by the respondent. That respondent also filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu where petitioner No.2 filed the reply. The said matter was compromised and respondent along with minor child came back and started living with her husband. The respondent did not mend herself and thereafter again deserted.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the documents annexed in the petition. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. In case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., 2017 AIR(SC) 373 it is held as under:-