SUSHIL KUMAR AND OTHER Vs. REENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sushil Kumar, Santosh Rani, Anita and Saroj seek quashing of the complaint Annexure P.1 dated March 9,1998 under Sections 323/506/406/498-A read with Sec. 34 Penal Code.

(2.) Reena Sharma-the complainant was married to Sushil Kumar according to Hindu rites on Sept. 3, 1995 and sufficient dowry as detailed and described in para 1 of the complaint, Annexure P.1 was given at the time of marriage, and it was entrusted to the accused. Since the day of her marriage, she was maltreated by the accused Sushil Kumar, in connivance with the other family members namely Santosh Rani, Anita and Saroj. He gave her beatings under the influence of liquor. A male child was born from this wedlock on Dec. 28,1995 at Amritsar and Rs. 12000.00 were given to accused Sushil Kumar and his mother Santosh Rani, although they had demanded Rs. 15000.00.

(3.) In the last week of May, 1996, the accused Sushil Kumar was again paid Rs 10,000.00 by the father of the complainant, but the accused were not satisfied and they raised demand of Rs. Two Lakhs and other items of dowry from the complainant. She told them that her father is unable to meet their demands. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on July 19.1995 after she was given merciless beatings. The matter was patched up with the intervention of the respectables on Oct. 2,1996. She returned to the matrimonial home but the behaviour of the accused did not-improve and she was again given beatings. On one occasion, the accused made an abortive attempt to administer poison to her but she was luckily saved. She wrote letters to her father, which have been attached with the complaint. She was again given beatings mercilessly and turned out of the matrimonial home. As a petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by Sushil Kumar - accused against the complainant, therefore the matter was again patched up with the intervention of respectables and she returned to the matrimonial home. On the eve of Guru Nanak Dev's Birthday in 1997. Sushil Kumar had taken Rs. 5000.00 from the maternal aunt of the complainant but his lust for money remained un-satiated.