GOPENDRA MOHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. M. A. No. 3159/2009 exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of, w. P. (CRL) No. 380/ 2009 and CRL. M. A. No. 3160/2009 (stay)Notice. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, learned counsel for the State accepts notice.

(2.) THE prayer in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('crpc') is for the quashing of FIR No. 101 of 2008 registered at Police Station CAW cell, Nanakpura under Sections 406/498a/34 ipc and all proceedings consequent thereto. The present petition is filed by the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant wife whose marriage with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 24th november 2005.

(3.) THE perusal of the FIR reveals that specific allegations have been made against each of the petitioners by the complainant, It is Stated that at the time of tikka and marriage on 22nd and 24th November 2005 respectively the mother-in-law demanded Rs. 5 lakhs. On 25th november 2005 the mother-in-law and sister-in-law taunted the complainant for not bringing dowry. The FIR states that they took away all the cash and jewellery and "since that day my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband used to scold me on one or other thing and sometimes used to do maar peet with her. Mother-in-law used to take Rs. 10,000/- from her salary every month. " Even after the complainant became pregnant in June 2006 then they did not stop torturing her. In september 2006 when, as asked by the mother-in-law, the complainant stood on a stool for cleaning and sister-in-law pushed her as a result of which her foot muscles got torn. They took about three months to heal. Demands for a car were made by the three petitioners in November 2006, a few days before Deepawali. Upon her refusal they started beating the complainant and threatened to kill her. She was beaten on the day of Karva Chauth. On the morning of 23rd November 2006 at around 4 am the mother-in-law having a bottle of petrol in her hand as well as the sister-in-law and the husband came to her room. The husband woke her up by pulling her hairs and the mother-in-law sprayed petrol on the complainant. Despite her entreaties they did not spare her, The sister-in-law ignited her by matchstick. The complainant screamed and ran into the bathroom. She succeeded in extinguishing the fire. She was nearly half burnt and by that time her father-in-law came there and was shocked. He chided the petitioners saying that if she died then they all would go to jail. The complainant started begging all of them to take her to hospital but her husband stated that she would be taken to hospital on condition she would not speak anything against any of them. It is stated that her sister-in-law and husband took pictures of her burnt body on the mobile phone and her statement, made under coercion, was recorded. In the FIR it is specifically stated that on account of the fear induced by her in-laws and her disturbed mental condition, the complainant made statements to her relatives, police officials and doctors in favour of her in-laws, She stayed in ICU for six days. She was discharged after 16 days in the hospital. It is stated that on 2nd January 2007 the complainant's operation for skin grafting was fixed. Without bothering about the complainant the husband went to Kerala for holidays. It was then that the complainant disclosed to her mother, father, brother and sister about the cruelties she was subjected to and that she was burnt by her in-laws and husband. Skin grafting was done on the complainant on 2nd February 2007 for which a sum of rs. 4,40,000/- was spent by her father, and for which he had to borrow a loan. After returning from Kerala the Petitioners came to her father's house and asked the complainant to withdraw money from her bhavishyanidhi. They stated that after the treatment was complete, and the car and the amount demanded by them was ready, she could call them and they would come and fetch her. When on 26th March 2007 a baby girl was born, none of the in-laws came to meet her despite being informed. The complainant proceeded to state in the FIR that she received summons from the civil court on 16th October 2007 in the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the hindu Marriage Act 1955 ('hma' ). Personal meetings were organized between the parties at the request of the learned Civil Judge but no settlement was arrived at on account of petitioners' attitude. The husband withdrew the said petition on 1st August 2008. It is stated that in-laws refused to return dowry articles.