SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 1597

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Amit Ahuja
Versus
Gian Parkash Bhambri
CM. No. 1787 of 2009,
Decided On : MAY 6, 2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing of complaint--Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner, through his attorney, is not maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1974, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1960, Ss.406 and 198-A--Quashing of complaint--Through Power of attorney--Only accused person, against whom, a criminal case, has been registered or a criminal complaint, has been filed, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in High Court, for quashing complaint, summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, and no third person, can fight a proxy war, on his behalf, under garb of public interest litigant--Aggrieved party, which is affected by an order, is required to seek redress of its grievance, by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the same--If the aggrieved party, is suffering from some disability, which, in law, is recognized as sufficient to permit any other person e.g. next friend, to move the Court, on his behalf. (Para 9)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1974, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1960, S.406 and 198 A--Quashing of complaint--Through Power of attorney--Nothing on the record, that he is an accused, in complaint--It is he, who is aggrieved against the complaint and the summoning order--Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner, through his attorney, is not maintainable. (Para 9)

       

Judgment

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing Complaint No. 12 dated 15.5.07 (Annexure P-l), the summoning order dated 2.7.08 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by Amit Ahuja s/o Late Sh. Kamlesh Chander Ahuja, resident of 212-B, Al Quassis, Dubai through his lawful Special Power of Attorney holder, Indu Ahuja wife of Late Sh. Kamlesh Ahuja r/o H. No. 1007, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the marriage between Gauri daughter of the complainant and Amit Ahuja, petitioner was solemnized, through Chuni Chadai ceremony, on 9.9.2003, at Patiala. Therefore, the marriage was registered on 12.9.2003 and ultimately proper Phera ceremony as per Hindu religious rites, was performed on 7.2.2004, at Patiala. At the time of marriage, sufficient articles of dowry, and a cash amount of Rs. 4 lacs, were entrusted to the petitioner, and his co-petitioners (non-applicants). Prior to the solemnization of marriage, the petitioner, represented himself, to be an employee of SMB Computers, at Dubai, and claimed that, his brother namely Ashish Ahuja, was a permanent resident of USA, where his mother was settled in Chandigarh. Gauri and Amit Ahuja left for Dubai, in the month of February, 2004, after having a short stay in India. In fact, the petitioner was serving with SMB Computers Distributors of Samsung, and was of Peripheral Gulf Visa. Soon after the marriage, Gauri daughter of the complainant, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of more dowry. While living in Dubai, in the month of February, 2004, the daughter of the complainant, was harassed by her husband, to get arranged ticket, from the funds of her father. The daughter of the complainant tried her best, to keep her in-laws happy, but in vain. Ultimately she returned to India, and narrated the entire incident to the complainant as a result, whereof, a Panchayat was convended, wherein, the accused, were also summoned but no amicable settlement could be arrived at. On 22.7.05 the daughter of the complainant, went to Dubai and found the apartment of the petitioner locked. Thereafter, she stayed with her friend and, ultimately, resided as paying guest, at Sharjah and returned to India on 01.09.05. Ultimately, the daughter of the complainant, obtained an ex parte divorce from the petitioner, but her in-laws refused, to return the dowry articles, entrusted at the time of marriage. Left with no other alternative the aforesaid complaint was filed.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned the petitioner and his co-petitioners (non-applicants), to face trial, for the offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents on record carefully.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, Amit Ahuja petitioner, who is an accused in the aforesaid complaint is residing in Dubai. She further submitted that, in Section 482 Cr.P.C. there is no reference to person aggrieved. She further submitted that, if there is abuse of the process of Court, a person, genuinely interested in the accused, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. She further submitted that, since the complaint, the summoning order, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, Indu Ahuja, attorney of the petitioner, being genuinely interested, in the matter and locus standi and the petition, could be filed,. through her, by the petitioner. She further submitted that almost all the alleged offences were committed in Dubai. She further submitted that since the cause of action, arose within the jurisdiction of Courts at Dubai, the complaint could not be filed in the courts at India. She further submitted that, since the compalainant, the summoning order, and all the su










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top