Nachhatar Kaur vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The second respondentGurdeep Kaur is the wife of Lakhminder Singh. The first petitionerNachhatar Kaur is the mother and the second petitionerDilbagh Singh is the father respectively of the said Lakhminder Singh. Lakhminder Singh married the second respondentGurdeep Kaur on 13.2.1993. Father of the second respondent Baldev Singh preferred a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Jagadhri, under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, a copy of which is annexure, P.1. He has shown as accused 1 to 3 Lakhminder Singh (husband), fatherinlaw Dilbagh Singh and motherinlaw Nachhatar Kaur. He has alleged that the marriage between Gurdeep Kaur and Lakhminder Singh took place on 13.2.1993, and that valuable articles were given to Lakhminder Singh and fatherinlaw at the time of marriage. According to him, she was given normal treatment for 3 or 4 months after marriage and thereafter, she was treated in an inhuman manner. He has alleged that even physical force was used against her to exert pressure upon her to fetch Rs. one lac for the purchase of the Maruti car. The father of Gurdeep Kaur has also alleged that on 9.11.1993, in the presence of his daughter, he gave a sum of Rs. 38,000/ to Lakhminder Singh by raising a loan, in view of the fact that his daughter Gurdeep Kaur was forced by all the accused persons to fetch money. He has further alleged that Lakhminder Singh who was running a shop compelled Gurdeep Kaur to bring Rs. 15,000/ from him (complainant) for purchase of increasing the stock for his shop, and that in order to secure the happiness of the daughter and her peaceful domestic life, he gave this amount to the motherinlaw Nachhatar Kaur. He has alleged that the accused were not completely satisfied, but, continued to maltreat and torture Gurdeep Kaur, and when they were convinced that she will not meet their further demands, they started beating Gurdeep Kaur, as a result of which Gurdeep Kaur was admitted in Gabba Hospital, Yamunanagar, for treatment. He has also alleged that motherinlaw Nachhatar Kaur persistently taunted Gurdeep Kaur since she had not brought the Maruti car as dowry. Similar demand was made by Lakhminder Singh and Dilbagh Singh also. He has also alleged that Gurdeep Kaur was assaulted by all the accused at the night between 5th and 6th Oct, 1994. According to him, he went along with Sarpanch of the village Dr. Sohinder Kumar, Subedar Charan Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh on 7.10.94, and requested them to behave in a civilized manner, which they did not listen to. Therefore, he requested action may be taken against all the accused persons under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. It is to quash this FIR Nachhatar Kaur the motherinlaw, Dilbagh Singh fatherinlaw respectively of Gurdeep Kaur have come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The first respondentState and the second respondentGurdeep Kaur, who was impleaded subsequently, have filed separate replies opposing this application.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR does not show a case, much more under Section 498A IPC, that the allegations therein are vague, and that the allegation that Gurdeep Kaur was given beatings is falsified by medical evidence. But, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are vague or that a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC is not made out. I have pointed out above in detail the several allegations found in the complaint, which will go to show that Gurdeep Kaur and her father Baldev Singh were harassed for extracting more dowry. Once these allegations are proved, then Section 498A IPC will be attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Gurdeep Kaur had given a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that there were some contradictions between the complaint and the statement of Gurdeep Kaur. But this is not the stage to critically examine the allegations made in the FIR. Similarly learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that though Gurdeep Kaur was stated to have been assaulted by the petitioners and her husband and was admitted to Gabba Hospital, the annexure P3 attached with this petition only shows that she was suffering from depression and that there was no mark of injury on her body. As pointed out already the Court has at this stage, only to find out whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out a case. It is unnecessary to find out whether these allegations are true or not on the basis of any material or evidence collected by the petitioner, herein, or anybody else.

I find that the complaint gives details of harassment alleged to have been meted out to Gurdeep Kaur and her father with reference to particular dates also. The allegations cannot be stated to be vague, and it is unnecessary, at this stage, to go into the question whether those allegations are true or false. Therefore, the FIR is not liable to be quashed and consequently the further proceedings also cannot be quashed.

In the result the petition is dismissed.