SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) PETITIONER Prithvi Raj Sehgal is an old man of near about 65 years. He retired as Junior Engineer in 1998 from Punjab Irrigation Department, Patiala. He was married 36 years back with Chander Mohini Sehgal- respondent No. 2-complainant. He is having two sons. The elder is near-about 34 of age and younger is 31 years old. After retirement, he has settled at Faridabad with his elder son Navin Sehgal, who got married the girl of his choice.
(2.) AFTER 33 years of the marriage, respondent No. 2 filed a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala against petitioner Prithvi Raj Sehgal, Navin Sehgal, son of the petitioner and Balbir Singh, father-in-law of Navin Sehgal, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 64 dated 6.4.1999 under Sections 406/498-A/506 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has been ill- treating her, did not give money for use for her living, quarrelled with her and demanded to bring some more money from her parents. It was further alleged that on her refusal, she was given beatings and when she demanded her dowry articles given to the petitioner at the time of her marriage, he refused to return the same. During the course of investigation, the allegations made by the complainant were found to be false and the accused were found to be innocent. A cancellation report was submitted to the Court on 6.9.1999, copy of this has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2. In the cancellation report, the investigating agency gave a finding that the petitioner was married to the complainant about 30 years back and her parents had died more than 15 years back. It was also found that during the married life of 30 years, the petitioner did not demand any dowry from the complainant. In fact the root cause for the dispute is inter-caste marriage of Navin Sehgal with one Mandeep Kaur, daughter of Balbir Singh, against the wishes of the complainant.
(3.) THE Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala did not accept the said report and ordered for re-investigation of the matter by the police vide his order dated 21.8.2000, which is reproduced below :- "Statement of complainant recorded. In view of the statement of the complainant and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present case is sent for reinvestigation to S.S.P., Patiala through proper channel who shall get the case reinvestigated and the S.S.P. may present his report within 3 months from today." Thereafter, the matter was re-investigated. Again the police found the allegations to be false and the accused innocent, and submitted the cancellation report on 9.2.2001, copy of which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-3. But the complainant made a written application to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who vide his order dated 18.10.2001 directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to make a detailed enquiry into the complaint and submit the detailed enquiry report to the court. In view of the said order, the matter was again re-investigated by the police. The findings given in the second cancellation report were reiterated and the said cancellation report was submitted to the court. But the J.M.I.C., Patiala vide his order dated 5.8.2003, again did not accept the said cancellation report and again sent the matter for re-investigation by the police, while observing as under :- "Complainant suffered statement on 10.02.2003 that she was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police and wants to pursue the case. In view of the statement, present case is ordered to be sent back to the police station, Civil Lines, Patiala, through S.S.P. Patiala, for reinvestigation. Ahlmad is directed to send cancellation report to the police stating (station ?) civil lines, Patiala, after making relevant entry in the register." The petitioner has challenged the said order, and has also prayed for quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R. and all the subsequent proceedings.;