Dismissed

Munish Jain & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2012CRM-M/12558/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition filed for quashing a criminal complaint lodged by the wife against her husband and others for dowry cruelty. The Judge held the complaint was not liable to be quashed as the complainant had a right to make representation to the DIG.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing criminal complaint dismissed as it was not devoid of any merit.

Munish Jain & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-12558 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Munish Jain and others

¶5

Crl.M.No.M-12558 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2012 .....Petitioners

¶6

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

.......

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

Crl.M.No.25458 of 2012

¶14

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

Crl.M.No.M-12558 of 2012

¶16

The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of criminal complaint dated 21.12.2011 filed by respondent no.2 before DIG, Ludhiana Range, Punjab, Annexure P1.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶18

Perusal of complaint, Annexure P1, dated 26.12.2011, which is sought to be quashed, shows that the same was filed by complainant Shimpy Jain by taking the plea that she was married with Manish Jain, petitioner no.1, on 21.1.2006 and dowry articles as per demand of in-laws were given in her marriage. An amount of `17 lacs was spent by her parents in the marriage. Forty tolas of gold was also given. However, they being greedy persons were not satisfied with the same and started to give her beatings. She had already given an application to police station, Patiala, on 27.7.2011

¶19

Crl.M.No.M-12558 of 2012(O&M) -2-

¶20

and, however, no action was taken and no case was registered as the petitioners being influential persons. She has also alleged that even Incharge Women Cell had got her signatures on some blank papers on the plea that she would be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home. It is further stated that on 10.10.2011, she had given an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, for registration of the case against her in-laws, which was marked to SHO Women Cell, Sirhind and, however, no action was taken on the same as well. She has also mentioned about a divorce petition filed by her husband against her. She has also stated that she had also filed a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, at Amloh.

¶21

A very perusal of the complaint shows that all the facts regarding pendency of previous litigation has been mentioned in the petition given by her before the DIG, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana.

¶22

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that complainant Shimpy Jain is harassing the present petitioners by filing various applications.

¶23

However, plea cannot be accepted. Rather the complainant, Shimpy Jain is running from pillar to post. She had approached various police authorities, however, when, no action was taken on her complaints, she made complaint to DIG, Ludhiana Range, Punjab, Annexure P1. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that she is having no right to make any such representation to DIG, Ludhiana Range, Punjab, and that the same is liable to be quashed.

¶24

My attention was also drawn towards, Annexure P3, a letter

¶25

-3-

¶26

Crl.M.No.M-12558 of 2012(O&M)

¶27

from Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, wherein it was recommended that as some cases are pending in the Court, the application be filed.

¶28

However, merely, on the ground that some cases are pending in Court, complaint Annexure P1 cannot be filed. My attention was also drawn to Annexure P5, i.e., report of Incharge Women Cell Counselling, Patiala. However, complainant has already made a mention of the same in her complaint before the DIG. It is also contended that petitioners have already filed application for anticipatory bail before this Court in which notice was issued to respondent-complainant. However, perusal of order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.11.2011 shows that it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were keen to settle the dispute and thereafter notice was issued.

¶29

Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionersMunish Jain, Darshan Jain, Kusum Jain and Ritu Jain for quashing of complaint is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶30

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶31

9.5.2012

¶32

meenu

Munish Jain & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Jain & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samreet Dhillon and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhura Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sardool Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Binder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahabir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.