DESH RAM PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Desh Ram Pal has been implicated by the Police Station Moti Nagar. under Section 406 Indian Penal Code . vide F.I.R. No. 128/92. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to complainant Smt. Santosh, daughter of late Shri R.L. Sharma. After the marriage, the petitioner started qurelling and beating his wife and turned her out from his house along with their son who was eight months old. She lodged a report with the Police Station Rani Bagh. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce which was contested by his wife and got the same dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was also dismissed but the Letter Patent Appeal is pending. Since the wife had no source of income, therefore, she filed a petition for maintenance and the Court granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs.350.00 per month. For some time the petitioner paid the amount of maintenance but thereafter stopped the same. She is living with her parents for the last 15 years and had been demanding the return of her articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. Along with the complaint she has furnished all the details regarding the articles lying with the petitioner and the demand made by her.

(2.) On this complaint the present F.I.R. was lodged, li is further the case of the prosecution that in order to investigate, the Investigating Officer tried to contact the petitioner but found that he has given a wrong address. His whareabouts are not available nor he is disclosing his whereabouts as a result of which the investigation could not be completed because the petitioner is absconding.

(3.) The petitioner has sought for quashing of the F.I.R. inter-alia on the grounds that the complaint of the wife is barred by time. She could have demanded the return of the dowry articles maximum within three years. Having not done so, the complaint cannot lie. Moreover, the ingredients of Sections 405 and 406 are not made out from her complaint. Her complaint suffers from lack of particulars. The same is vague, as no particulars of dowry have been mentioned nor it is mentioned that the petitioner refused to return the same.