KULJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-64
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 12,2007

KULJINDER KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 218/2005 registered with Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi under Section 406/498A/34 IPC. The complainant (the respondent No.2 in this petition) lodged the instant FIR alleging that she was married to Sardar Kulbir Singh on 14th August, 1995. After her marriage, her mother-in-law and Jethani stated as to why she had not brought a Maruti Car and demanded cash of Rs.50,000/-. She left the company of her husband on 17th November, 1996 along with her minor child and lodged a report with Police Station Paschim Vihar wherein she stated that she was leaving the house of her own. She had earlier also filed a complaint against her in-laws, but after 10/12 hearings, she gave up the complaint. She was now filing this complaint against her in-laws. Her husband had now married to another woman named Simmi of Rajkot. Her husband has made this as a business of marrying girls again and again and God knows how many ladies would be his victims. She wanted her husband to be punished so that people would learn from this and the society would be benefited.
(2.) A perusal of entire complaint would show that the only allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner are that the petitioner told her as to why she had not brought the Maruti car and demanded cash of Rs.50,000/-. There are no other allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner except that she was not being paid maintenance by her husband for herself and the child and her husband had married to another girl. The complainant had left the company of her husband with her minor child in 1996. The instant FIR was lodged on 26th March, 2005. This FIR does not disclose commission of any crime under Section 498A or 406 of IPC. The complainant also did not disclose as to what was the earlier case filed by her where it was filed, what was its number, why it was given up.
(3.) In view of above facts, I consider that it is a fit case where FIR should be quashed since continuation of this FIR would amount to misuse of process of law. This FIR seems to have been lodged by complainant only to take vengeance after a lapse of more than 8 years, from her husband since her husband re-married.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.