RAM I LAL GOEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (Code for short) seeks quashing of an FIR No. 104/90under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Vinay Nagar, NewDelhi on 27.3.90 against the petitioners.

(2.) I have beard learned Counsel for the parties.The case of the prosecution appearing from the statement of Smt.Shanti Goel is that she was married to the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 andbrother of petitioners 3 and 4 on 12.5.1989. After only one month of marriage the in-laws started mal-treating her for bringing less dowry and everyday their cruel treatment towards her was increasing. Her father gave dowryarticles according to his capacity but now he was hopeless to fulfill theirdemands because he was a retired Govt, Servant. She further said that herin-laws give beating to her and use filthy language saying that she must bringmoney, whether from her parents or even by prostitution. She furthermentioned in the FIR that her life and that of her parents was in danger.Her husband dropped her at her parents house only a day before the recording of the FIR and asked her to bring Rs. 25,000.00. She visited matrimonialhome in the morning of 27.3.1990 i.e., the day on which she recorded thisFIR to collect her clothes. But the husband refused to give clothes to her andsaid that he will see her. She also named all the four petitioners who threatened her and used abusive language towards her.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there are simplyvague allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the FIR did notdisclose any good case against the petitioners which could end in theirconviction. He has drawn my attention to some authorities. The first case isthat of Jatinder Kumar and others v. State (Delhi Administration). 1992Criminal Law Journal, 1482 and the second case is of Dr. Vinod Kumar Goyaland others v. Union Territory and others. 1991 Criminal Law Journal, 2333. Ihave gone through these authorities. In the first case there was only thestatement of the father of the deceased under Section 161 of the Code to theeffect that the behaviour of the sister of the accused was bad. Except thatstatement, there was no other material shown to the Court against the twogirls who were the sisters-in-law of the deceased. But in the present casebefore me, there are specific allegations made by the wife that the petitionersasked her to bring Rs. 25,000.00 from her parents or if that was not possible,by prostitution. This allegation, if true, is very serious and I am of theopinion that if the complainant-wife is able to prove that such a demandwas made from her by the petitioners, the case against them may be coveredunder Section 498-A IPC. In the second case also it was found that therewere vague allegations against the relatives of the husband and that is whythe FIR qua them was quashed.