NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners, who happen to be parents, brothers, sister and brothers wife, of the husband of Smt. Sunita Rani respondent, have filed this petition under Procedure, 1973, for quashing the First Information Report for offences under sections 406/109/498-A, Indian Penal Code, and the resultant proceedings there from.

(2.) The resume of facts relevant for me disposal of this petition figures in F.I.R. (Annexure P1) registered on the written complaint of Smt. Sunita Rani It reads: F.I.R. No. 167 dated 3 1.3.1990 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, Smt. Sunita Rani wife of Shri Manohar Lal, daughter of Sh. Sohan Lal, resident of Gali Chaprawali, House No. 1242, Sirsa Tehsil and District Sirsa Complainant Versus 1. Manohar Lal son of Shri Nanak Chand r/o Gali Dhobianwali, Sirsa. 2. Nanak Chand son of Shri Ami Chand. 3. Raj Rani wife of Nanak Chand. 4. Subhash Chand son of Shri Nanak Chand. 5. Surinder son of Shri Nanak Chund. 6. Sushma wife of Shri Surendra KumarsonofNanakChand.7. Prem son of Shri Nunak Chand 8. Babal daughter of Shri Nanak Chand, resident of Gali Dhobianwali, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa Accused. Complaint under sections 406, 109/498A of the Indian Penal Code. Sir,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. and the entire proceedings should be quashed on the ground of vagueness of allegations qua entrustment and refusal to return Stridhan of Smt. Sunita Rani. It is further maintained that the allegations qua maltreatment are vague as no time of occurrence or manner in which she was maltreated figured in the complaint. It is further maintained that the articles given by way of gifts to the relations of the husband would not form part of stridhan of Smt. Sunita Rani. The learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as the private respondent, on the other hand, maintain that the articles forming part of stridhan of the wife are usually entrusted to the parents- in-law and other relations at the time of marriage and this the entrustment should be presumed. It is further stressed that the accused were residing jointly at the time of the marriage and they were doing so till 1-1/2 months of the marriage when Smt. Sunita Rani was turned out after maltreatment.