VIDAY DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners first of all points out that even in the complaint it has been mentioned in paragraph -3 that a list of dowry articles has been annexed and these items were all given, at the time of marriage of the, complainant, to accused Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the present petitioners namely the mother -in -law, sister -in -law and the brother -in -law and another. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations are not specific as to which of the items were given to which of the petitioner and, therefore. The complaint is liable to the quashed as against the petitioners. He further contends that the marriage had taken place in the year 1996 the complainant had filed a petition for divorce in the year 1997 and even divorce has been granted on 14 -9 -1998 vide Annexures P -2 by the learned Additional District Judge. Rewari. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out these factors that the marriage had taken place in the year 1996 and also that the divorce had also been granted in the year 1998 contends that it is improbable that the complainant would have allowed the dowry articles to remain with the petitioners for such a long period and on that ground also the complaint in liable to be quashed. Yet another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while the second petitioner Chandra Ranta (sister -in -law of the complainant) was married ten years prior to the marriage and has been living separately the third petitioner Vinod Parkash (brother -in -law of the complaint) has also been living separately. The fact that the second petitioner (sister -in -law) was married ten years prior to the marriage of the complainant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Similarly. the fact that she is living separately is not disputed. So far as the third -petitioner is concerned the petitioners have produced annexures P -5 the copy of the ration card showing that he has been living separately which again is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these circumstances, contends that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been living separately, and they have nothing to do with the dowry articles, especially when the marriage had taken in the year 1996. The learned counsel for the State contends that in matters of taking possession of the dowry articles, it is only lady members who take possession of the dowry articles. But in the circumstances pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. I am of the view that the complaint is liable to be quashed for the reasons (1) that no specific entrustment is pleaded with reference to the specific petitioners (2) that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are living separately and (3) that the marriage had taken place in the year 1996 and even divorce had taken place in the year 1997 which shows that it is improbable that the complainant would have allowed the petitioners to be in possession of the dowry articles for such a long time.