LAWS(P&H)-1991-1-53

BAGH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 16, 1991
BAGH SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhag Singh and others have come to this Court for quashing the First Information Report No. 495 dated 23-10-88, registered at Police Station, Ambala City is 498A/ 406/109,IPC. All the petitioners are close relations of Pargat Singh, husband of Smt. Kulwant Kaur respondent No.2. To elaborate Bhag Singh is the father, Smt. Surjit Kaur is the mother, Dalbir Singh is the borther and Smt. Kulwant Kaur is brother's wife of Pargat Singh.

(2.) According to the complaint, Smt. Kulwant Kaur was married to Pargat Singh on 2-4-88 at Ambala. Thereafter both the parties cohabitated at village Rallu Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar. The complainant received presents and dowry articles, detail of which is given in Annexure A. She had also received presents from her in-laws, as per list Annexure B. Her husband started making demands of other articles and also started finding fault with her on small matters and started taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. Smt. Jasbir Kaur and Smt. Surinder Kaur sisters of Pargat Singh started instigating him to remarry so that he could get Maruti car. When her husband made a demand of Maruti car, the complainant told him that her parents could not meet that demand. The complainant was maltreated by all the accused-persons and ultimately, she was left her her husband at the house of her parents on 10-7-87. The complainant was physically assaulted several times by her husband and the present-petitioners. A number of efforts were made by the complainants father in village Rallu Majra; but the behaviour of the accused did not change. Ultimately, Ranjit Singh, who acted as ago-between, was contacted and when they approached the accused-persons, Ranjit Singh was caused injuries.

(3.) So far as the allegations of cruelty/are concerned, the occurrence is stated to have taken place at her-in-laws house at Rallu Majra, in District Ropar. The Courts at Ambala had no jurisdiction to investigate and try the present petitioners for that offence.