State of Punja vs NIDHI GUPTA

Order

17.09.2024 Pritpal Singh @ gh @ Pratipal Singh & Another State of Punja unjab & Another Vs. …..Petitioner(s) (s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Vishal Singh Chauhan, A for the petitioners. , Advocate Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG AG Punjab. ***** ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J Prayer in the present petit petition is for quashing on merits of the crimina inal complaint bearing No.COMI/3 I/3/2020 dated 16.01.2020 titled as “Sandeep K ep Kaur Vs. Harminder Singh & Othe Others” (Annexure P1) filed under Sections 498 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC (on an or n oral request made by learned counsel for th r the petitioners that inadvertently IPC ntly offence under Section 34 IPC is not mention tioned in the headnote as also in th in the prayer clause of the present petition, the the same may be included); and nd the summoning order dated

16.09.2023 (A 3 (Annexure P2) passed thereup reupon by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 e, 1st Class, Phillaur, along with the s he subsequent proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for th r the petitioners submits that petitioner No. No.1 is the paternal uncle-in-law ( w (chacha sauhra) and petitioner No.2 t paternal w aunt-in-law (chachi saas) complainant/r nt/respondent No.2. The nephew o ew of the petitioners was married SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document to the compla mplainant on 07.02.2018. As such, uch, the petitioners being distant relatives of of the complainant, have been been unnecessarily and falsely 8 implicated in in the present complaint. More oreover, the petitioners reside separately and and have nothing to do with the m he matrimonial relations or affairs of the comp omplainant. Even no allegations ions have been made by the complainant a nt against the present petitioners. ers. In fact, the complainant has admitted that that the petitioners have treated d her with utmost love and good behavior. Des espite that they have been false falsely implicated in the present complaint. M Moreover, the complainant has has placed on record no cogent evidence to s to show any involvement of the p e petitioners in the complaint in question. How owever, these facts have not bee been appreciated by the learned trial Court wh t while passing the impugned summ summoning order. It is submitted that the petiti etitioners have been falsely implica licated in the present matter only to harass an and torture all family membe mbers of the husband of the complainant. nt. Otherwise, none of the all allegations made against the petitioners are s are made out. Even the allegation tions in the complaint that dowry articles had b ad been handed over to the petit f it petitioners, are on the face of it implausible as le as any new married girl would ha ld hand over her dowry articles to her own moth mother-in-law and father-in-law. Th The petitioners are merely the uncle and aun aunt-in-law of the complainant. E t. Even there is no active role of the petitioner ners in the present complaint. Th . They have no concern from the domestic life life of the complainant. They ha have been implicated only on account of b of being the real uncle and au aunt of the husband of the complainant. I nt. It is accordingly, prayed that the ; t the present petition be allowed; SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 and the imp impugned complaint and impugn 23 pugned order dated 16.09.2023 (Annexure P2) P2) be set aside/quashed.

4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard learned cou counsel for the petitioners and perused the ca e case file in great detail.

5. Perusal of record of the ca e case shows that the nephew of the petitione ioners was married to the comp omplainant/respondent No.2 on

07.02.2018. It . It is the assertion of the comp omplainant that her parents had performed a la a lavish wedding in which the petit petitioners were also given gifts of clothes and o

d other items. It has further bee been alleged that dowry articles including jewe jewellery and other valuables we were entrusted to the accused including the p the petitioners, which have been mi n misappropriated by them.

6. The petitioners are the the residents of Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh havin aving their respective settled bu business. The husband of the complainant nt was working in the firm/ / factory namely Jagat Singh Agriculture Ind e Industry owned and managed by d by petitioner No.2 in Hardoi for around two ye o years. As such, after the marriag riage, the complainant along with her husband nd had gone to Hardoi, Uttar Pra Pradesh; where they admittedly resided with t ith the petitioners. Thus, the conte ontention of the petitioners that they resided s ed separately is found to be incorre orrect. In fact, it has been alleged that the comp omplainant and her husband were were told by the petitioners that they would h ld have to reside with the petition itioners for one year after which they could set settle either at Goraya or in a ren rented accommodation at Hardoi itself. It has has also been alleged that petiti etitioner No.2 had slapped the SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document complainant in nt in front of the servants of the h he house. The petitioners are also alleged to hav have snatched away all the jewelle wellery of the complainant. It was 8 in this backg ckground and in view of these se specific allegations, that the petitioners h s have been summoned by th learned trial Court. The correctness or ss or otherwise of the allegations m s made by the complainant in her complaint can can only be proven after trial upon pon leading of evidence.

7. Besides this, even the lega s is legal position in such like cases is very clear. In . In such a situation, it would be a be apposite to refer to a 3-Judge Bench of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ca n case titled as “M/s Neeharika Infrastructure ture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Mahara harashtra & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 1830 830709, relevant part of which is re is reproduced hereinbelow:- “10. From the aforesaid decisions isions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in il in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following prin principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right ight and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Crim Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investi es; vestigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart art any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no co o cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to on to go on; iv) The power of quashing should hould be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of ra of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application ation for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not to be co e confused with the norm which has been formulated in the cont context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court ourt); SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 v) While examining an FIR/com /complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embar bark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or other otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought no ht not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR d a /FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since ince the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres heres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, r ver, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above o 82 ve of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are ing; complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases w s where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, stice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent p ent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on n on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is ort is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and det details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the in e investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be pre premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts th ts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or t or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or or after investigation, SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 investigating officer finds that t e hat there is no substance in the application made by the complain plainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/ ort/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be conside sidered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known pro n procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 is very wide, but conferment of wide power requir . It quires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligen iligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, th e, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of q of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly larly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. K Lal .P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to qua o quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing t ing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exerc xercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 only has to c to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the e the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to co to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable izable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating ag g agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” d) (Emphasis supplied)

8. Reliance may also be plac placed upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court in “Satvinder Kaur Vs. State tate (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)” Law Finder doc ID c ID # 32588, wherein it has been he n held as under:- “D. Criminal Procedure Code, 197 , 1973, Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Law enunciated by Supreme eme Court summed up :- (i) If an offence is disclose closed, Court will not normally interfere with investigation ation into the case and will permit SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 investigation into the off ie, offence - If FIR, prima facie, disclosed commission of of an offence, court does not normally stop the investiga stigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful po ul power of Police to investigate into cognizable offences. 19 s. 1982(1) SCC 561. (ii) For purpose of exercising 82 cising power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, a ode, 1973 to quash FIR or a complaint, the High Cou Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegati egations made in the complaint or the documents accompan panying the same - It has no jurisdiction to examine the e the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. 1985(2) SCC ) SCC 370. (iii) Power of quashing the cri e criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly w ly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cas e cases. (iv) Court will not be justified i fied in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or gen genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I e F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inhere nherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the n the court to act according to its whim or caprice. (v) First information report is o rt is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investiga stigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exerc exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation ed, ation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be tak e taken by the court and at that stage it is not possible for t for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materia aterials and then come to the conclusion one way or the al) the other. 1991(1) RCR (Criminal)

831. (vi) High Court should be loath loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution tion exercising its inherent power SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 8 under Section 482 or unde under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and a nd allow the law to take its own course. (vii) Such power should be spar sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the court is of is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarria carriage of justice. (viii) Social stability and order is der is required to be regulated by proceeding against the o he offender as it is an offence against the society as a who whole.”

9. In view of the factual an l and legal position, as noticed above, I find n ind no merit in the present petition ly, ition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

10. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of.

17.09.2024 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2024.09.20 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document