High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Asha Rani v. State of Haryana & Anr. - CRM-54818-m-2003  RD-P&H 3005 (9 May 2006)
Crl. Misc. No.54818-M of 2003
Date of decision: May 17, 2006.
State of Haryana & Anr.
Present: None for the petitioners.
Shri Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The case has been called twice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present.
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.193 dated 2.6.2003, under section 498-A/406/506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar qua the petitioner.
The above said FIR has been got registered by Kiran Bala respondent No.2. She was married to Naresh Kumar on 22.10.1998. A female child was born out of the wedlock, however, respondent No.2 and her husband Naresh Kumar could not pull on together and on account of the matrimonial dispute, the impugned FIR was got registered by Kiran Bala against her husband Naresh Kumar and his family members. The petitioner herein is sister of Naresh Kumar.
In support of the prayer made in this petition, the petitioner has averred that:- (i) she is an unmarried girl of 21-22 years of age; (ii) the complainant Kiran Bala and her husband Naresh Kumar brother of the petitioner have been living separately from the very beginning which is evident from the ration cards, Annexures P-1 and P-2; (iii) the petitioner has been residing separately along with her parents as is evident from the above said ration cards; (iv) the allegations against the petitioner are totally vague and wild; (v) the complainant (Kiran Bala) and brother of the petitioner, namely, Naresh Kumar have already mutually divorced vide judgment dated 1.3.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure P-7); (vi) in the aforementioned judgment, it has been categorically mentioned that "after give and take, the parties decided to close the chapter of their marital relations".
I have gone through the petition as well as the contents of the impugned FIR (Annexure P-4).
I have also heard Learned State Counsel as well as Learned Counsel for the complainant.
There cannot be a denial that as and when an unfortunate matrimonial dispute crops up, there is a tendency to rope in as many as family members of the husband as possible. The petitioner also appears to have been named in the FIR which contains allegations of general in nature so far as she is concerned.
Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that after registration of the impugned FIR, the brother of the petitioner and his complainant wife have mutually divorced; the petitioner is a young unarried girl and her own future matrimonial prospects are at stake, coupled with the nature of allegations levelled against her, I am satisfied that it will not be in the interest of administration of criminal justice to allow the impugned criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner.
Consequently, the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner alone, are hereby quashed.
It is, however, made clear that there is no expression of views on the merits of the case in this order so far as the other accused are concerned. Their complicity shall be independently examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence to be led by the prosecution and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
May 17, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.