Satish And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 July, 2008

Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                         Crl. Misc. No.78184-M of 2006
                          Date of Decision: 10.7.2008

Satish and others
                                                .....Petitioners
              VERSUS

State of Haryana and another                    .....Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present:-     Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

              Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 774 dated 27.11.2000 under Sections 498-A,

406, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City, Rohtak and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom.

At the outset the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

present petition is not being pressed on behalf of petitioner No.4 Smt. Phootwati

wife of Dariya Singh, therefore, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua

petitioner no.4.

He has also informed this Court that Dariya Singh s/o Badlu has

since expired. Therefore, the present petition is only on behalf of petitioners No. 1

and 2 namely Satish and Naresh sons of Dariya Singh.

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an earlier decision of this

Court (Annexure P-7) rendered in the case of the elder brother and bhabhi of the

petitioners titled as Rohtash and Another versus State of Haryana (Crl. Misc.

No. 11789-M of 2005) which was allowed on 21.11.2006.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is conceded by the counsel that the allegations against the present

petitioners are similar to those against Rohtash and his wife who has filed Crl.
Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006 2

Misc. No. 11789-M of 2005. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.11.2006

vide which FIR in question has been quashed against Rohtash and his wife is being

reproduced as under:-

“It is pleaded that marriage between respondent no. 2

and Raj Kumar, brother of petitioner no.1 was solemnized on

19.11.1999 at Rohtak. No child was born out of the wedlock.

Allegations were made against all the members of the family

including mother in law, father in law and younger brother of Raj

Kumar. All the five persons have been challaned. The trial qua the

petitioners was stayed whereas trial against other is going on.

Quashing has been prayed for essentially on the ground

that the petitioners are married and have been living separately in

House No. 15 at Village Ahullana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat,

along with three minor children. Ration card has been appended as

Annexure P-2 to substantiate the plea that the petitioners had a

separate residence. There is no specific allegation with regard to the

demand of dowry against the petitioners. The

respondent/complainant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act against Raj Kumar, husband, on the ground of

cruelty and desertion. The additional District Judge vide judgement

dated 17.9.2003 has allowed the petition of divorce only on the

ground of desertion. Reference has been made to para 10 of the

judgement which is reproduced hereunder for convenience:-

Resultantly, this petition is hereby

allowed on the ground of desertion and that the

marriage is totally broken marriage. Marriage of the

petitioner with the respondent is hereby dissolved.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. In peculiar facts
Crl. Misc. No. 78184-M of 2006 3

and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to

bear their own costs.”

I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioners

were living separate and have their own matrimonial home along

with three children, they had no occasion to interefere in the

matrimonial life of Raj Kumar and Geeta. There is no specific

allegation against the petitioners. Even the divorce has been allowed

only on the grounds of desertion which finding is recorded against

Raj Kumar only.”

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 and

2 are un-married brothers-in-law of the complainant-respondent no.2 and are living

separately from the complainant and her husband. Petitioner no.1 was studying in

Yamunanagar pursuing his course for Bachelor of Arts and was living in the rented

house of one Pawan Kumar at the time of marriage of respondent no.2 and even

thereafter. The counsel has relied upon an affidavit dated 24.3.2008 attached as

Annexure P-2. Similarly, petitioner no.2 was also student at the time of marriage

of respondent no.2 and was studying at Rohtak while staying in Sri Gandhi Harjan

Sewa Ashram Dhanipura, Rohtak. A copy of certificate dated 4.12.2000 issued by

the society is attached as Annexure P-3. The counsel for the petitioners has further

argued that there are no specific allegations against the accused persons whereas

vague and baseless allegations have been made the basis in the FIR.

In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of

the case in totality, FIR No. 774 dated 27.11.2000 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506

IPC registered at Police Station City, Rohtak at the instance of respondent no.2 and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

July 10 , 2008                                  (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
rekha                                            Judge