WRIT PETITION None on 1 September 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.

Cr.Misc. M 10118 of 2010 Date of decision:January 15 , 2011

Tarlochan Singh and others

Petitioner

State of Haryana

vs.

Respondent

Present:Mr. Navkiran Singh, AdvocateMr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The petitioners are co-accused with Kalawanti. The saidKalawanti had lodged an FIR No. 116 dated 1.9.2004 u/s 406/498-A IPCagainst her husband. Kalawanti, who was married to respondent No.2-Mohinder Singh was abundant by him, as such, she started livingseparately. On 14.12.2004 Kalawanti was abducted by her husbandMohinder Singh and his other relatives from Panchkula and was taken tovillage Mohd. Khera . A Habeas Corpus petition was filed in the High Court.Kalawanti was recovered from the illegal custody. Thereafter, she made astatement in the court on 17.12.2004, as such, the Habeas Corpus petitionwas disposed of on 10.1.2005.

Mohinder Singh-respondent No.2 husband of Kalawanti lodgedan FIR No. 38 dated 14.3.2005 u/s 494/323/506/120-B IPC at PoliceStation Sector 20, Panchkula, in which he had levelled allegations against the petitioners that they had taken away his wife Kalawawti along withjewellery, clothes and cash. Kalawanti along with the petitioners has beenbooked in the said criminal case. The petitioners have sought the quashingof FIR No.38 dated 14.3.2005 on the ground that the FIR qua Kalawantihas been quashed by this court vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed inCr.Misc. M 58907 of 2005.

In order to fairly consider all the facts and circumstances of thecase for the purpose of quashing of the FIR, it would be relevant to refer tothe allegations in the FIR No. 38 dated 14.3.2005. As per the FIR,registered at the instance of Mohinder Singh, he was married to Kalawantiabout 15 years back. Two sons were born to him. After 2 years of marriagecomplainant Mohinder Singh starting living at Panchkula with his wife. Inthe year 2000 he had got a contract in MES at Leh Ladhakh, for which hehad to go to Leh Ladakh. In his absence his wife Kalawanti developedillegal relations with Tarlochan Singh, Driver in the Haryana Roadways atPanchkula. The complainant had given an application on 2.6.2004 toSuperintendent of Police, Panchkula. The petitioner Tarlochan Singh No.1had submitted a written apology at Police Post, Sector 15, Panchkula. On14.12.2004 Mohinder Singh had taken his wife Kalawanti to his villageMohd. Khera district Jind but the petitioners in consultation with each otherattacked his house, for which he made a report at Police Station PeeluKhera. Balbir Kaur had allegedly filed a false writ petition in the High Court.Under the orders of the High Court Kalawanti came to Panchkula in H. No.2318, Sector 15, Panchkula. On the night of 17.12.2004 petitioner No.1Tarlochan Singh and other persons during night went to the complainant'shouse and took away his wife Kalawanti, for which the complainant had given an information to the Police. The house hold articles of thecomplainant had been taken away from his house. The stolen articlescontained jewellery items, a gold chain, a ring and a cash of Rs.35,000/-.Kalawanti had taken away all the jewellery articles and she ran away withthe petitioners. The petitioners had allegedly given beating to MohinderSingh while leaving and also threatened to kill him. Kalawanti changed hername to Kulwant Kaur and had married Tarlochan Singh petitioner No.1without obtaining divorce from the complainant. It has been claimed by thecomplainant that petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh has got links withmilitants and that he had to undergo imprisonment for 1 ½ years.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners hasvehemently alleged that the allegations of the complainant that thepetitioners had taken away his wife and stolen articles from his house, arefalse in view of complainant's wife having been found in the illegal custodyby the Warrant Officer, appointed by the High Court. She had stated thather life was in danger. The FIR qua Kalawanti has been quashed videorder dated 4.3.2010 passed in Cr.Misc. M 58907 of 2005 by this court.

A perusal of the judgment dated 4.3.2001 indicates that report of the Warrant Officer dated 17.12.2004 indicated that on 17.12.2004Kalawanti was found in the custody of Mohinder Singh against her wishesand that the allegation that Kalawawnti had on the same day taken awayarticles from her matrimonial home at Panchkula was patently wrong andwas improbable on the face of it. The FIR had been lodged after threemonths by respondent No.2, which fact was indicative of the manipulationat the hands of complainant- respondent No.2. In the said order it wasopined that the marriage of Kalawanti with Tarlochan Singh was not substantiated by any material collected by the police. Learned counsel forthe petitioners has argued that when the allegations against Kalawantihave been found to be false, the continuation of proceedings against thepetitioners will be an abuse of the process of the court.

In the reply filed by DSP, Panchkula it has been submitted thatchallan was presented in this case on 25.10.2005 and that the case is fixedfor defence evidence on 31.8.2010. The FIR against Kalawanti havingbeen quashed on 4.3.2010 has been admitted. After taking intoconsideration all the circumstances and status of the trial, this court is ofthe opinion that exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR qua thepetitioners would not be appropriate. Petitioner No.1 Talochan Singhappears to be in custody as is apparent from the Power of Attorney filedon his behalf and from the interim orders dated 18.1.2010, 4.5.2010 and31.8.2010. As per the interim orders, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Istclass, Panchkula, production warrants seem to have been issued forproduction of petitioner No.1 Tarlochan Singh in the court. Since theevidence of the prosecution seems to have already been concluded as perthe reply filed by the State and the case is listed for defence evidence,without making any reference to the evidence produced, it will not beappropriate at this penultimate stage of trial to quash the FIR and thecriminal proceedings. The petitioners may have a good case on merits onappreciation of evidence for acquittal but in view of the stage of the trial, itwill not be appropriate at this stage to quash the FIR, which was registeredin the year 2005, ignoring the material, which has already been producedbefore the trial court.

Dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the trial, preferably within a period of three monthsafter a receipt of a certified copy of this order by giving short dates. It willbe open to the petitioners to take the benefit of the order passed by thiscourt qua the co-accused of the petitioner.

January 15 2011 TSM

( M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE