The central legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be used to abuse the process of the court for private vendettas in relation to property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

The brief facts of this C482 Application are that, the complainant/ respondent no.2, who is the wife of late Mr. Avtar Singh, was the heir of the present applicant. She being married to the son of applicant no.3, had registered an FIR, being FIR No.633 of 2017 for the alleged involvement of the present applicants for commission of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 342 of the IPC.

2. The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer has submitted a Chargesheet No.132 of 2018 dated 28.03.2018, as against the present applicants for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 342 of the IPC, on which, the summoning order has been issued, resulting into the registration of Criminal Case No.10482 of 2018, “State Vs. Baljeet Kaur and Others”, the summoning order has been issued on 10.08.2018, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant C482 Application.

3. The matter has been contested by the parties to the C482 Application on different grounds. In order to precisely summarize the grounds, as taken by the learned counsel for the applicants to put a challenge to the FIR, it deals with:-

1) That FIR is nothing but an encyclopedia with regards to the claim which has been raised by the complainant in relation to the property claiming herself to be having a coparcenery rights since being the widow of late son of applicant no.3.

2) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the entire FIR, in fact, is a reflection of a civil litigation, which has been given the colour of a criminal case by registration of the FIR and, particularly, in a nutshell, if the FIR is taken into consideration, it relates to the vengeance of the grievances, with regards to the respective claim and rights over the immoveable property, which the parties claim and, particularly, the complainant, is alleged to have her claim of having succeeded the share of the same, on the basis of being the widow of late son of applicant no.3.

3) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted, that none of the ingredients, as contemplated under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 342 of the IPC, are made out against the present applicants. Thus, the proceeding of the Criminal Case No.10482 of 2018, “State Vs. Baljeet Kaur and Others” does not sustain.

4) In extension of his argument, he submits that in C482 Application in paragraph no.14, he has specifically raised a plea that, in fact, it is the demand of share in the property, which has been raised by the complainant, which has been denied by applicant no.3, which is the sole motive for registration of the complaint. He further submits that the aforesaid facts stand fortified by the response given by the respondent in paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit, where it has been submitted that though the contents of paragraph no.14 are false, but the complainant has submitted that she would be having a coparcenery rights over the property belonging to her late husband.

4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued the matter from the view point that, if the FIR is taken into consideration in its totality, the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, would be made out, for the reason being, that according to his interpretation given to Section 498A of the IPC, he submits that in order to constitute a commission of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the prime ingredients required therein, is with regard to establishment of the facts of cruelty.

5. He submits that, if the provisions contained under Section 498A of IPC is considered in its literal sense, it is always the conduct, which has to be taken into consideration by the Court to come to a conclusion, as to whether the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is made out or not? Because its basic feature has to be that it should drive a women to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her limb, life or health.

6. This deliberation made wit