UJAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 8 dated 22.1.1992 registered against the petitioners at die instance of respondent No. 2 Smt. Kulbir Kaur under Sections 406, 498-A, 494, 495, 506 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Phagwara.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Smt. Kulbir Kaur was married with Bhupinder Singh on 14.4.1988. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are parents of Bhupinder Singh, whereas petitioner No. 3 is his married sister and petitioner No. 4 is the husband of petitioner No. 3. From the facts, as stated in the petition, Bhupinder Singh lived with his wife only for a period of about one month and thereafter went abroad. It is also an admitted fad that while the husband was away, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house and after December, 1988, she never resided with her in-laws. Respondent No. 2 thereafter accompanied by her father and brothers took away the articles belonging to her from her in laws, house with the help of the police and when Ujaggar Singh petitioner lodged the report with the police about the incident, the present First Information Report was registered as a counter-blast on 22.1.1992. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid First Information Report.

(3.) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per admitted case of the parties, respondent No. 2 did not reside in the matrimonial home after December, 1988 and the First Information Report lodged in January, 1992, after a gap of more than three years and the consequent judicial proceedings were an abuse of the process of the Court. It is also urged that from a bare perusal of the First Information Report vague allegations seem to have been levelled, if at all against petitioner No. 1 only. There is merit in the stand of the petitioner. A bare reading of the First Information Report would indicate that an attempt has been made to settle scores with the petitioners for having lodged a report against respondent No. 2 and her father. It would also be apparent that respondent No. 2 resided with her husband and her in-laws for about a month after the marriage, as the husband had gone to America within a month of the marriage and returned home for the first time in December, 1991 and admittedly got married a second time. It appears that being unable to take any action against her husband, who was not easily available, respondent No. 2 has tried to involve her husband's family. In this view of the matter, the present First Information Report (Annexure P/1) and order framing the charge (Annexure P/2) are quashed. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.