RAMANDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC, filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR 91 dated 26.4.2000 under Sections 498A/4068/120-B, IPC, registered in Police Station, Sirhind, and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 11, Baljeet Singh, is the husband of complainant, Smt. Veena Rani, while petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 namely Sarup Singh and Satya Devi, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, Smt Veena Rani. Petitioner No. 10, Sandeep Singh is the Devar, while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 namely Manju Rani and Anju Rani, are the married Nanads of the complainant. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Gurdial Singh and Jito @ Surjit Kaur, are the Phufa and Bua, while petitioner No. 8, Surinder Kaur, is the widowed Massi (and also Chachi), while petitioner Nos. 1 and 9 namely Ramandeep Kaur and Inderjit Singh, are the Cousins (sister and brother) of the husband of the complainant.

(3.) IN the written reply, filed by Smt Veena Rani, complainant, respondent No. 2, it had been alleged that no case for quashing the FIR had been made out, inasmuch as specific allegations had been levelled against the accused- petitioners. It was alleged that various other Cousins and maternal Uncles and Aunts had been left out from the FIR and only those who were involved, had been accused of the offence committed by them. In my opinion, merely because some other Cousins have not been included in the list of accused, would be no ground to hold that infact the cousins and Uncles and Aunts who were named in the FIR were involved in the present case, especially when, only vague and general allegations had been levelled against them.