PARTAP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek quashment of the first information report No. 555 dated 8-12-1989 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Fatehabad, interalia, contending that allegations regarding torture and cruelty alleged therein are vague. Partap Singh petitioner is the father-in-law, Sanjiv husband while Rajiv is brother-in-law and Dhan Kaur petitioner, mother-in-law of Mst. Parkash who was married to Sanjiv on 15-12-1987 at village Gilla Khera in Police Station Fatehabad. The FIR has been lodged by Surjit Singh, brother of Mst. Parkash. It is maintained that at the time of marriage dowry articles besides Rs. one lac in cash were given to the petitioners Sanjiv, Rajiv, their sister Saroj and their father Partap Singh petitioner in the presence of some witnesses. Thereafter the accused-petitioners started maltreating Mst. Parkash on the ground that she has not brought a Maruti car, jeep or a scooter in dowry. During investigation of the case, some evidence had been collected to the effect that a Maruti car was also given to Sanjiv the husband of Mst. Parkash. In the statement of Shri Atma Ram Advocate, it also figured that at the time of marriage ornaments were entrusted to Partap Singh father-in-law of Mst. Parkash, in a brief case. It also transpires from the statements of the witnesses that on 15-7-1988, the Maruti caralong with some articles of dowry except the jewellery were returned by Sanjiv Kumar petitioner to Mst. Parkash and her brother Surjit Singh in the presence of Jagdish. At that time, Sanjiv Kumar had levelled allegation of infidelity against and that he will not keep her as his wife. During investigation of the case, offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

(3.) THE case is still under investigation. The statements of the witnesses recorded so far do not specify any overt acts to Rajiv and Dhan, Kaur petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 respectively regarding maltreatment of Mst. Parkash. The entrustment of articles of dowry to the petitioners is also vague. As already stated, Rajiv is the brother-in-law and Dhan Kaur is the mother-in-law of Mst. Parkash. Although in the FIR lodged by Surjit Singh, there are allegation that the entire dowry articles were entrusted to all these petitioners, yet keeping in view the fact that senior members in the family are generally entrusted with the dowry articles, the statement of Atma Ram Advocate recorded during investigation of the case that jewellery etc. was entrusted to Partap petitioner sounds exfacie truthful. The time, date and place of alleged taunting of Mst. Parkash on account of her not having brought the Maruti car in dowry, are not mentioned in the F. I. R. or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except the general allegations that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law also used to taunt her for having brought less dowry. Thus, the pendency of the investigation and trial in pursuance of the F. I. R. Annexure P-l, against Rajiv and Dhan Kaur certainly appears to be an abuse of the process of Court and call for quashing of the same qua them.