PREETI BULAGAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) They have pleaded in the petition that their brother Amit Anand got married with the complainant on 24.6.2005. Unfortunately, that matrimonial alliance ran into rough weather right from the day one and since then the complainant is systematically harassing and threatening them and her in-laws. She filed complaint dated 4.4.2006 against them. Amit Anand and their parents, before the SSP, Faridabad, in which extravagant allegations were levelled, charging them for the acts of commissions and omissions with oblique motive to entangle all the relations under various sections of IPC. All of them were summoned by the Women Cell to appeal before it on 1.5.2006. A detailed representation was made by Amit Anand to the SSP, Faridabad, to save his life and the members of his family. On 29.5.2006 a compromise was effected between him and the complainant and it was settled that they would reside separate and would shift to the other house. Accordingly, they started living in a separate house. After they shifted to the separate accommodation along with their all the household goods and articles on account of that compromise, the Women Cell, recommended to the SSP for not proceeding with the complaint. On 23.12.2006, the complainant left the matrimonial house in order to live with J.M. Malhotra, with the intention to hatch a conspiracy against them and their family members. She, in collusion with her parents and other associates, filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code in the Court of CJM Rohtak against them and other family members for the registration of the FIR. The police, without conducting any sort of investigation or inquiry, registered the said FIR against them and other family members from the bare perusal of the FIR, no such offence is made out against them as there is not even a slight allegation of demand of dowry against then. Petitioner No. 1 was married and had been residing at Agra (UP.), which is at the distance of 250 kms. from the Faridabad, for the last 14 years. Thus, there was no opportunity for her to harass or humilate the complainant for insufficient dowry. Petitioner No .2 is 23 years old unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant and is still pursuing her studies. She had been residing separate from the complainant and her husband. There was no occasion for her to demand anything by way of dowry. They also pleaded that the courts at Rohtak have no jurisdiction to try the case as the complainant had no point of time resided at that place and even the marriage was solemnized at Faridabad and she was employed at Faridabad itself.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents appeared and filed their respective replies. Reply on behalf of respondent No.l was filed by Rajesh Kumar, Inspector. He stated therein that after registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and incriminating evidence was collected against the petitioners and, as such, challan has already been filed against them and others. It has come during the evidence that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, their parents and brother, who is the husband of the complainant. All of them used to harass her with regard to the demand of dowry .The complainant was subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of the matrimonial home.