Gurbachan Singh And Anr. vs State And Anr.
1995 Latest Caselaw 545 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Srivastava, J.

(1) This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 11.1.95 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the proceedings relating to Fir 481 /92, Ps Hari Nagar u/Section 498A/406/34 IPC.

(2) On perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the case against the petitioner was under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. But the petitioner Gurbachan Singh and one Pritam Kaur have been charged under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and have been discharged for offences under Section 498A.

(3) The complainant is daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The facts in brief appear to be that the complainant was married to B.S. Kohli who died in the night of 22/23.6.1992. The complainant had two children from him, one daughter and one son. The marriage had taken place on 22.11.81. It appears that the complainant left the company of her husband in the year 1990 and came to live with her parents. The husband and the children continued to stay with the petitioner (father-in-law of the complainant). It appears that after the death of the complainant's husband she moved a petition for custody of her children on 5.8.92. The aforesaid Fir was lodged by her on 2.9.92.

(4) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has attacked the impugned order of framing charge under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on the grounds that the legal requirements of the said Section do not exist in the present case as the Fir does not specify entrustment of the articles and also does not say as to on what date demand of the articles was made. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that perhaps the Fir was lodged only to pressurise the petitioner to hand over the custody of complainant's children to her. Learned Counsel for. the petitioner relied on .

(5) Respondent No.2 has vehemently contested this petition and on her behalf the arguments advanced by her Counsel are that when a charge is framed the only consideration taken into account is prima fade evidence against the accused persons. He contends that the contents of the Fir are complete to make out a prima fade case of an offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(6) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also going through the record including the contents of the Fir for reasons I do not find it a case to interfere with the impugned order whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners. In order not to prejudice the mind of the lower Court I am refraining from making any detailed discussion either way. In view of our above discussion the petition is dismissed.