High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 4 March, 2009
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH




                                Criminal Misc M-6185 OF 2009

                                Date of decision: 4.3.3009


Sukhpreet Singh and ors                                    ...Petitioners

                          Versus

State of Punjab and ors                                    ...Respondents


Present:     Mr TPS Tung, Advocate for the petitioners.


S.S.SARON, J.

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR dated

24.5.2007 (P1) registered against the petitioner for the offences under

Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC.

During the course of hearing, it has been brought out that

charge in the case has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence of the

prosecution. The order framing charge has not been assailed in this petition.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as

per the allegations made in the FIR, it has been alleged by the complainant –

Kulwinder Kaur that she stayed in her matrimonial home for about 2

months and that during her stay, her life was made miserable. It is

submitted that the allegations of harassment and dowry could not have been

levelled when the stay of the complainant was barely for 2 months.

After hearing the contentions of the learned counsel, in my

view the said contentions as raised may be raised before the trial Court after

evidence has been led. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is
Cr Misc M-6185 of 2009 2

not to embark upon an inquiry to ascertain whether in the circumstances

mere stay of 2 months by the wife in her matrimonial home would amount

to the offences as have been alleged. Besides, as already noticed, the order

framing charge has not been assailed in this petition.

In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the

same is hereby dismissed.

The learned counsel then submits that Harpreet Kaur

(petitioner-2) is a lady and her personal presence before the trial Court may

be exempted.

Petitioner-2 may move an application in this regard before the

trial Court itself and in case such an application is made, the trial Court

shall exempt her personal appearance on such terms and conditions as may

be deemed proper which shall, however, include that she shall have no

objection to the recording of evidence in her absence; that she would be

represented by a counsel and she would be present in Court on the material

dates when her presence is required.

4.3.2009                                            ( S.S.SARON )
ASR                                                      Judge