Amar Kaur and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The prayer made in this petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for quashing of FIR No.366 dated September 17,2006 registered under Sections 323,406,498A, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioners herein are the widow mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant.

Briefly the facts as stated in the petition are that marriage of the complainant took place with the son of petitioner No.1 Balwinder Singh on June 26, 1989. As the complainant was not willing to live in the joint family, she was separated long back and at that time she had taken all her dowry articles while shifting to her separate residence. In fact the petitioners had even transferred a piece of land measuring one acre in the name of the complainant to pacify her but even that did not satisfy her. Marriage in the present case was solemnised in a simple manner without any dowry. Filing of complaint nearly after 17 years of marriage with no previous history of any such allegation shows that the story is concocted and the allegations are patently false. It is further stated that petitioner No.3, who is sister-in-law of the complainant was married about 30 years ago and was living separately in a village about 30 kilometers from the place of residence of the complaint. There are no specific allegations in the FIR against the petitioners. Reply to the petition has been filed only by the State where the factum of complainant residing separate to the petitioners is admitted. There is no denial of transfer of land by the petitioners in her favour. Respondent No.2-complainant though served but has not filed any reply denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the paper book.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that mere fact that the marriage in the present case was solemnised 17 years before the FIR in question was registered and with no previous history of any such allegations itself shows that the story is concocted. It is admitted position on record that complainant and the petitioners were living separately. The allegations made by the petitioner in para 3 of the petition to the effect that at the time of separation the complainant had taken all her dowry articles and nothing was in their possession, is not denied by the complainant. Further the petitioner no.3 is sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant, who was married 30 years prior to the date of registration of FIR and was living separately in a village about 30 kilometers from the residence of the complainant. Once respondent no.2 has chosen not to file any reply even the factum of transfer of land measuring one acre by the petitioner in her favour also remained uncontroverted. It is further submitted that mere fact that petitioner had themselves transferred land in favour of the complainant shows that they were not greedy of any dowry. Mad that been so, they would have never transferred land in her favour. Still further it is submitted that there are no specific allegations against-the petitioners, in the complaint on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. The allegations are general in nature.

On the other land, learned counsel for the respondent-State while controverting the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the case in hand, petitioners are part of same family. They cannot be absolved of their liability. In fact the complainant was being harassed by the petitioners alongwith Balwinder Singh, husband of the complainant for bringing more dowry. This Court should not interfere in the present petition of this stage for the reasons that challan had already been presented.

A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 on the basis of which the FIR was registered shows that primarily the, allegations are against Balwinder Singh husband of the complainant. It is stated that on account of demand of motor cycle at the time of marriage, the matter was resolved and a sum of Rs.6,000/- was given to the husband of the complainant, who is alleged to be habitual of taking liquor and gambling and used to beat the complainant. Further it is alleged that on May 2,2003 the husband of the complainant had beaten her and compelled her to bring Rs.20,000/- from her parents and on her refusal, she was turned out from the house. On a complaint filed u/s 125 of the Code against Balwinder Singh, the matter was compromised where Balwinder Singh gave in writing on May 6, 2004 that he will not make any demand of dowry from the complainant and thereafter the complainant was living in her separate matrimonial home with her husband. The other allegations in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant alongwith present petitioners used to demand dowry and beat the complainant, which are general in nature. Besides that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Further even in the complaint it is admitted by the complainant that petitioner no.3 is resident of different village as compared to the village in which petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are residing.

In view of the uncontroverted allegations, where the petitioners are, admittedly, living separate from the complainant, where she was living with her husband and even earlier litigation was also with her husband only, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to save the petitioners from being unnecessarily harassed due to the pendency of the proceedings against them. Accordingly, the FIRNo.366 dated 17.09.2006 under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners namely Amar Kaur, Jasbir Singh and Jaspal Kaur are quashed.