The court highlighted the importance of considering the context of multiple pending litigations between the parties and the lack of evidence for the alleged offences in reaching the decision to quash the proceedings.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint No.5 dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Abdul Sattar Vs. Kausar Parveen & Others” under Sections 313, 325, 329, 342, 452, 506, 120-B IPC pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, summoning order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that the respondent No.2 (complainant) instituted the present complaint with the allegations that on account of multiple litigations pending between the parties, on 21.09.2006, the petitioner No.1-Faujia, petitioner No.2-Kausar Parveen alongwith Mohd. Kaleem and other accused surrounded his wife-Shehnaz and attacked her. Kausar Parveen gagged her mouth with a curtain whereas Kaleem and Faujia started abusing his wife. They gave fist and kick blows in her abdomen and stomach. During this time, Mehardin, Rashidan and Nazia kept instigating the petitioners and Mohd. Kaleem to make his (complainant’s) wife barren so that she could never bear a child. He had taken his wife for treatment on 21.09.2006 to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. The accused had caused her miscarriage without her consent, and therefore, a DDR No.7 dated 24.09.2006 came to be recorded at Police Station City Malerkotla regarding the occurrence. However, on being approached, the local police informed him and his wife that as there were numerous litigations pending between the parties, the present complaint appeared to have been given by the complainant in order to settle the matter by mounting pressure on the accused (who were complainants in the 307 IPC case). Therefore, when his wife came to be acquitted in a case under Section 307 IPC, he had instituted the instant complaint after more than 06 years of the occurrence. A copy of the complaint dated 14.06.2012 under Sections 313, 325, 329, 342, 452, 506, 120-B IPC is attached as Annexure P-1.

Based on the evidence led including the statements of CW-1/Shehnaz, the alleged victim (Annexure P-4) and CW-2/Abdul Sattar-complainant (Annexure P-5) alongwith other witnesses, the petitioners and their co-accused came to be summoned for having committed the offence under Sections 323, 325, 313, 342, 452 and 506 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla is attached as Annexure P-2.

3. The aforementioned complaint dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are sought to be quashed by way of filing of the present petition.

4. The learned Senior counsel contends that the instant complaint has been lodged on account of a mala fide on the part of the complainant party. In fact, there were multiple civil and criminal litigations pending between the parties and the present complaint has been filed with a view to pressurize the accused.

He contends that the occurrence pertains to 21.09.2006. The DDR regarding the occurrence bearing DDR No.7 came to be recorded on 24.09.2006 (Annexure P-3). The instant complaint came to be instituted on 14.06.2012 whereas the summoning order came to be passed on 06.08.2016. This delay in the filing of the complaint was fatal to the case of the complainant, and therefore, the proceedings were liable to be quashed on this count alone.

He contends that the allegations as levelled in the FIR regarding beatings having been given to the wife of the complainant, namely, Shehnaz, leading to the commission of an offence under Section 325 and 313 IPC are completely baseless. As per DDR No.7 dated 24.09.2006 (Annexure P-3), Shehnaz has referred to the beatings being given to her on 21.09.2006 but has stated nothing about either a miscarriage or a grievous injury being suffered by her. The MLR of the even date also shows that there were no signs of swell