High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhateri vs State Of Haryana on 25 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhateri vs State Of Haryana on 25 November, 2008
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                           Criminal Misc.19179-M of 2008

                            DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 25, 2008




BHATERI                                               ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                                      .... RESPONDENT(S)




CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana.



AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,

seeks quashing of FIR No.66 dated 9.5.2008 under Sections 323, 452, 506,

34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City Dadri, District Bhiwani

(Annexure P-1).

The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner-Bhateri

wife of Balbir Singh is that the petitioner is a person with 75% handicap.

The petitioner cannot even walk without the aid of a stick. In view of the

physical condition of the petitioner, it was impossible for the petitioner to
Criminal Misc.19179-M of 2008 2

have committed the offence under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, as per

the allegations made by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the basis of

affidavit of Shri Subhash Chander, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer,

Police Station, City Dadri, admits that, indeed, the petitioner is a

handicapped lady and cannot walk without the help of a lathi. It is further

not in dispute that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she

committed the offence under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, along with

her two sons; namely, Vinod and Sonu.

I have considered the issue.

It transpires that the petitioner is Polio affected and both her

lower limbs have suffered deformity amounting to permanent disability to

the extent of 75%. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is

handicapped to the extent as given out in the certificate mentioned in

para-3 of the petition, I find that it would be an abuse of the process of

court to allow the proceedings to continue as against the petitioner.

Clearly, the petitioner was not physically capable of

committing the offence of house tresspass after preparation for hurt,

assault or wrongful restraint. Since the petitioner can only walk with the

aid of a stick, it cannot be termed that the petitioner was armed with a

lathi to commit the offence, as alleged. It would not indicate that the

petitioner had made preparation for causing hurt to any person or

assaulting any person or putting any person in fear of hurt, as provided

under Section 452, Indian Penal Code.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No.66 dated
Criminal Misc.19179-M of 2008 3

9.5.2008 under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police

Station, City Dadri, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioner, is

quashed.

November 25, 2008                                       ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                            JUDGE