LexBHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011) 10 S.C.R. 844 BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1709 OF 2011) SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 482 - Petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings - Complaint by wife against her husband alleging commission of offence punishable uls 498A - Women's Cell reporting that nothing had come out from the inquiry ta prove 0 the demand of dowry and issuance of threat - Subsequently, FIR registered - Petition of husband seeking to quash the FIR dismissed by High Court - Held: From the entire records available, it is clear that the complaint made by the wife did not make out a prima facie case to go to trial uls.498-A /PC E - The single Judge of the High Court did not appreciate the nature of the on and off relationship between the couple - The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the FIR and all proceedings taken on the basis thereof are quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.498-A. F The marriage of the appellant and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 27 .11.2004 and the couple went to Gajarat where the appellant-husband was employed. Subsequently, differences arose between them and the wife, respondent no. 2, on 12.5.2006 made a complaint to G the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala (Punjab) that a criminal case be registered against the appellant for commission of offence punishable uls.498-A IPC. The complaint was forwarded to the Women's Cell, which reported that nothing had come out from the inquiry to H 844 BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN v. STATE OF PUNJAB 845 AND ORS. prove the demand of dowry and issuance of threat and A the dispute was of a civil nature which did not call for ay action by the police at that stage. However, subsequently, when an FIR was registered against the appellant for offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC, he filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court 8 dismissed the petition. Allowing the appeal filed by the husband, the Court HELD: From the entire records available, it is clear that the complaint made by respondent No.2 does not C make out a prima facie case to go to trial u/s 498-A IPC and appears to have been filed by respondent No.2 based on misunderstandings between the parties prompting respondent No.2 to attack the appellant for something which is likely to have occurred during their stormy D marriage. The Single Judge of the High Court did not appreciate the nature of the on and off relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2. In such circumstances, no offence u/s 498-A IPC had been made out against the appellant. The impugned order of the High E Court is set aside and the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 against the appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the basis thereof, are quashed. [Paras 9-13] [849-B-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal F No. 1709 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 27.8.2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. 13709-M of 2007. G Vijay K. Aggarwal, Babanjeet Singh, Shekhar Kumar for the Appellant. Gagan Gupta, Tarun Shankar 8., Kuldip Singh, R.K. H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 10 S.C.R. A Pandey, K.K. Pandey, Mohit Mudgil, H.S. Sandhu for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, who had all along been appearing in person, was represented by counsel, Mr. Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Punjab c and Haryana High Court in Crl.M. No.13709 ·of 2007, dismissing the appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S. Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2 herein. 3. The appellant's marriage was solemnized with the D respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh rites. After their marriage, 'the couple went to Gujarat where the appellant was employed with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband and wife, though no child was born out of the said wedlock. Subsequently, differences E arose between the appellant and the respondent No.2 which resulted in a complaint being made by the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.