Girish Malhotra vs State of Haryana and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Girish Malhotra and Sneh Lata have brought the above mentioned two petitions under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 511 dated 9.7.2011 (Annexure P5) registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This is a case of marriage that was solemnized on 18.4.2010, the day when the petitioners and others came to the place of the complainant, Neeru Monga for approving her for marriage with Rajiv Malhotra. Though, the parents of the complainant tried to postpone the marriage saying that they had not made any preparation, yet the side of the petitioners insisted on the marriage on the same day. After giving the details of the festivities arranged hurriedly and the items given in the marriage, the complainant has claimed in the FIR that she was harassed by the accused in connection with demand of dowry saying that nothing was given in the marriage. She has also claimed that they were comparing the dowry brought by Sneh Lata, one of the petitioners before me, with the items she brought. She also claims that on the demands made upon her, a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs for purchase of a car, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for Air Conditioner and inverter and another sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for making up for the purchase price of Swift car were given but still peace could not be bought for the complainant at her matrimonial home.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner, Girish Malhotra is brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant, Neeru Monga, while Sneh Lata is her jethani. He has submitted that besides the two, the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant are also involved in this case. According to him, there is tendency now a days of involving all the family members of the husband. According to him, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. He has further submitted that the complainant alongwith her husband were separated from the remaining members of the family and they had started living separately. According to him, the allegations against the petitioners, if any, are of a period after they had started living separately and, therefore, the case got registered against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the law.

3.Learned State counsel has admitted that the complainant had been living separately with her husband and the remaining members of the family had been living separately. According to him, she lived jointly with her in-laws for some days only. He, however, could not specify the period during which she lived in the joint family.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the allegations of entrustment of dowry articles are specific. According to him, there has been harassment of the complainant in connection with demand of the price of the car and the price of Air Conditioner and inverter. He has further submitted that a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs at one time and a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs at another time were paid for the purchase of car and besides that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-for purchase of Air Conditioner and inverter was also paid. He has further submitted that Girish Malhotra, the petitioner had extended threats to the complainant during the pendency of this case on account of which FIR No. 264 dated 21.4.2012 was registered against him. He has lastly submitted that the petitioners had beaten the complainant and she had suffered injuries, regarding which there is no explanation given by the petitioners.

Neeru Monga, the complainant had been married with Rajiv Malhotra. Ravinder Malhotra is her father-in-law while Guldesh Malhotra is her mother-in-law. The petitioners, Girish Malhotra and Sneh Lata are her devar and jethani respectively.

While levelling the allegations about having made arrangements hurriedly, it is claimed that a sum of Rs. 3,100/- and a gold ring each had been given to the two petitioners. Besides the aforesaid, nothing else is there in the FIR as to have been paid to the petitioners. The allegations are of harassment of the complainant by her husband and the allegations regarding beating given to the complainant are also against her husband. It is a general statement on the part of the complainant that her husband was beating her at the instance of the other accused. This statement is quite vague.

Besides the aforesaid amounts of Rs. 3,100/- in cash and a ring, no other dowry item was entrusted to the petitioners. These amounts of Rs. 3,100/- each and gold rings would be the gifts and not the dowry items which were given to the petitioners to be returned to the complainant while she reached her matrimonial home.

There is no dispute before me about the fact that after some time of the marriage, the complainant with her husband, started living separately from other members of her husband''s family. This fact stands reflected in the order dated 25.1.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-24742 and 28636 of 2011 filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has even failed to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, which are duly supported by learned State counsel.

Demands of dowry are generally seen to have been made by the husband and the parents-in-law who may be said to stand to benefit on fulfillment of the same. There can be no occasion on the part of a devar and jethani to demand dowry as also of entrustment of the dowry items. The tendency on the part of estranged wife and her family members to rope in all the members of the family of her husband in matrimonial dispute is recognized in various decisions. To quote one of them, it is Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2011 (5) R.C.R. (Crl.) 686. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the FIR, analyzed as above and the tendency to rope in all the family members of the husband in the light of the fact that the complainant with her husband had been living separately from her in-laws, I find the FIR against the petitioners to be an abuse of the process of the law. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 511 dated 9.7.2011 (Annexure P5) registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with section 34 IPC alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua the petitioners.