Ashwani Kumar And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3096 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 672 of 2019

.

Date of Decision: 12.07.2021

Ashwani Kumar and another ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO __________________________________________________________________

For the petitioners: Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate

General, with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Rajat Chauhan Law Officer for respondent No.1.

Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

                         THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE





        FIR No.   Dated               Police Station    Sections
        11/       27.05.2019          Women      Police 498 A, 406 and 506
        2019                          Station,    Una, of IPC





                                      H.P.

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge (Oral).

Challenging the registration of FIR and consequent filing

of police report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C, father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent No.2), have come up

before this Court seeking quashing of aforementioned FIR and

consequent proceedings.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the record with utmost care.

.

3. The petitioners' case is that the matter was compromised

between the parties vide Annexures P-2 and P-3. After that, the

present FIR was registered on the same allegations, as such, it is hit

by Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

4. I have gone through the contents of FIR, which are

reproduced in Annexure P-1. A perusal of FIR reveals that the

complainant (respondent No.2) have duly mentioned the fact of

compromise, but she has stated that after the compromise, her

father-in-law would trouble her in intoxication and was also causing

mental cruelty to her. She further stated that her husband would

beat her alongwith mother-in-law and father-in-law and later on they

dropped her back at home.

5. A perusal of this report reveals that although the

allegations of causing cruelty and mental harassment are specific

against petitioner No.1, father-in-law Ashwani Kumar, but these

allegations are not specific against petitioner No.2, mother -in-law

Chanchla Devi.

6. After compromise, the only allegations against

respondent No.2, Chanchal Devi, are that when her husband would

beat her, her father-in and mother-in-law were also with him. This

allegation is too general in nature against mother-in-law. Given the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs.

State of U.P. 2012(4), R.C.R. (Criminal) 812, prima facie there is

no allegation against petitioner No.2, Chanchal Devi, however, there

.

are fresh allegations against petitioner No.1, Ashwani Kumar.

7. Given above, as far as FIR and proceedings against

respondent No.2 are concerned, the same are quashed and set aside.

However, as far as petition of Ashwani Kumar, father-in-law, is

concerned, there are prima facie allegations against him and the

same are not required to be quashed.

8. The petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge

12 July, 2021 (R.Atal)

.