In a writ petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR u/s 498-A IPC, the single judge rejected the plea that petitioners were mere pawns in a divorce dispute. Finding specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment in the FIR, the court dismissed the petition and denied interim quashing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-14665 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-14665 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 21.08.2012
Manju Chawla and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate, for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rudraneel Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is for quashing the FIR No.456 dated 02.07.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Gurgaon, and all subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom.
The learned counsel contends that the petitioners are sisters-in-law of the complainant and have been roped in the present case. Petitioner No.1 was married in the year 1993 whereas petitioner No.2 was married in the year 2008. No specific allegations has been
CRM No.M-14665 of 2012 -2-
raised against the the petitioners. Their brother, who is the husband of the complainant, filed divorce petition against the complainant and as a counter-blast, the present FIR has been lodged.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that there are specific instances of demand of dowry and physical assault. The petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR and specific roles have been ascribed to them.
Heard.
From the perusal of the FIR, Annexure P-1, it emerges that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners have been alleged to have actively participated in the crime and harassed the respondent.
In view of the above, no ground for quashing the FIR is
made out.
Dismissed.
This order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case after trial.
The interim order dated 17.05.2012, granting exemption of appearance to petitioner No.1 shall continue during the pendency of the trial.
21.08.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes / No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as secured under Section 482 Cr PC?
Whether the allegations against the petitioners in the FIR warrant the continuation of the proceedings?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Chawla
another
State of Haryana
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
