CRM No. M-6087 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-6087 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.03.2009
Gurmit Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.4
dated 5th January, 2009, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 324, 323
read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar.
The FIR was lodged by Geeta Devi. According to the
allegations in the FIR, after marriage, Geeta Devi was harassed by her
husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanand). The father-in-law
and sister-in-law are petitioners herein. The complainant alleged in the
FIR that she was subjected to continuous harassment for bringing less
dowry at the time of marriage. The complainant also alleged that she
was given beatings by her in-laws and husband. In view of the fact that
there are three children from the wedlock, the complainant went back to
matrimonial home pursuant to a compromise dated 22nd December,
2008. However, thereafter she was again subjected to cruelty. On 4th
January, 2009, the complainant was beaten up by the petitioners as well
CRM No. M-6087 of 2009 2
as her husband. The complainant has alleged that her husband even
given a knife blow on her left arm. Allegations of severe beatings have
also been levelled against the sister-in-law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought quashing of
the FIR on the ground that allegations in the FIR are totally false and
that no offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC is made out. This apart,
the police station at Adampur had no jurisdiction to register the FIR.
The counsel has placed reliance on a judgment reported as Manish
Ratan & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal)
513.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
carefully considered the submissions made before this court.
It is evident from a perusal of the FIR that serious
allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and direct role has
been attributed to both the petitioners in harassing the complainant for
not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. The plea of the
petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case, is not
tenable at this stage. Moreover, the case is still under investigation.
The plea of false implication at this stage cannot be entertained by this
court.
As regards the jurisdiction of police station Adampur to
register the FIR, it is evident that complainant is a resident of village
Gazipur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Adampur. The list of
dowry articles given in the FIR are stated to have been entrusted to the
CRM No. M-6087 of 2009 3
petitioners at the time of marriage within the jurisdiction of the said
police station. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Manish
Ratan’s case (supra) would not thus be applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Under the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition.
The same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March 04, 2009
‘rajpal’