Criminal Misc. No. 45755 of 2007 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. 45755 of 2007
Date of decision : 23.10.2008
Manga Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Ram Sarup & another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondent No.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Respondent no.1 (Ram Sarup) is father-in-law of his
estranged daughter-in-law (Sushma).
Initially, when the relationship between Sushma and her
husband went uneasy, the former (Sushma) lodged a FIR on 9.10.2003
(Annexure P-1) with the police of Police Station Civil Lines. In the course
thereof, she made a grievance of having been subjected to dowry related
torture at the hands of her husband and other members of her in-laws
family including respondent No.1 (Ram Sarup) her father-in-law. Charge
had been framed against the accused including respondent No.1 (Ram
Sarup) in that case on 15.3.2005 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, Mst.
Sushma filed a divorce petition in the District Court, Kurukshetra on
12.8.2005 (Annexure P-3). That case was transferred by this court from
the Court at Kurukshetra to the Court at Karnal. In that case, dowry articles
were ordered to be released on ‘superdari’ on 20.11.2005 which were
Criminal Misc. No. 45755 of 2007 -2-
****
released on ‘superdari’ to Sushma on 20.11.2005. As against it, the
present complaint under Sections 420, 406,506, 166, 167, 392, 467, 471
and 34 IPC was fled by respondent No.1 (Ram Sarup) on 9.1.2006 in
respect of an occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 14.10.2003.
I have heard Shri J.S.Virk, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri S.S.Mor, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondent-State.
None turned up today to address arguments on behalf of
respondent No.1 (Ram Sarup) inspite of repeated calls during the day.
For the reasons noticed above, it is apparent that present
(private) complaint is an act of reprisal on the part of respondent No.1
(Ram Sarup) against the petitioners. It is particularly so when I find that
dowry articles recovered from the accused had already been released on
superdari on 20.11.2005.
The present is, thus, apparently a case in which respondent
No.1 (Ram Sarup) is endeavouring an act of reprisal against the members
of parental family of his estranged daughter-in-law Sushma. If that were
not so, there is no understandable reason why respondent No.1 (Ram
Sarup) would have lodged the impugned prosecution on 9.1.2006 inspite of
the fact that the impugned occurrence had taken place on 14.10.2003. It is
beyond the pale of controversy that the present complaint came to be filed
only with a view to pressurise Mst. Sushma daughter-in-law of the
respondent No.1 (Ram Sarup).
In the light of the fore-going discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that the present is a case of abuse of process of Court which
cannot be continence by law. The adoption of such like attitude of
respondent No.1 (Ram Sarup) cannot be validated in law. The complaint
Criminal Misc. No. 45755 of 2007 -3-
****
Annexure P-5 and also all the orders passed in the course thereof including
summoning order shall stand quashed.
The petition is allowed.
October 23, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE