NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRMALA , Murti, Suman Devi and Sharda, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 69 dated 13.4.2000 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. with police Station, Narnaund, District Hisar.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the statement of Sunita daughter of Bhalle Ram. Sunita was married with Charan Singh, brother of the petitioners, at village Majra, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar about 9 months prior to the lodging of report. Dowry articles as mentioned in the report besides cash amount detailed therein were given at the time of her marriage by her parents. After the marriage, she came to Village Dhani Piranwali, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, Jamna Devi, mother-in-law, Suman, Sharda, Murti and Nirmala, sisters-in-law of the complainant on seeing the dowry articles started shouting and saying that they had brought a daughter of poor family, who had not given scooter, fridge colour TV and cooler etc in dowry and had also not given anything during Tikka ceremony and for that reason they had been cheated. The complainant met her husband Charan Singh and saw his face for the first time at her matrimonial home. Her husband also insulted her by calling her a black-complexion girl. He further stated to her that he would not allow her to settle in the house and refused to have any connection with her. On the third day of her marriage, Ramesh Kumar son of uncle of the complainant came to Dhani Piranwali. He too was insulted by the accused and they abused the complainant in his presence. Thereafter, the complainant and Ramesh Kumar returned to the house of father of the complainant and narrated the incident to him and to her mother. Bhalle Ram along with Ram Pal, Deputy Sarpanch visited the house of the accused and informed them that he had spent over Rs. 1 lac on the marriage of his daughter and had given dowry articles to them and it was not possible for him to meet other demands made by the accused for want of financial capacity. However, the accused persisted with the demand of scooter, colour TV, fridge and cooler etc. and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and proclaimed that they will not allow Sunita to settle in the matrimonial home and for that reason he should re-marry his daughter somewhere else so that they could re-marry Charan Singh as well. The father of the complainant requested Charan Singh that he should allow his daughter to settle in the matrimonial home and assured that he would arrange for the money for providing them the articles demanded by him. On the next day Charan Singh and his mother Jamna Devi visited the house of father of the complainant at Village Majra and they were paid Rs. 50,000/- in cash in the presence of panchayat and thereafter the complainant accompanied them. She was kept there for three or four days and soon after Charan Singh in a drunken condition started beating the complainant. He stated to her that he required another Rs. 50,000/- for running a shop and she should go to her father and bring this amount from him. The complainant tried her level best to explain the financial position of her father to him and also told him that he had arranged Rs. 50,000/- with great difficulty and paid to him earlier. Upon this she was beaten by her husband as a result of which she became unconscious. Thereafter she was taken to Hansi for treatment. From there she was made to sit in a jeep and sent to Village Majra. Her husband told her that in case she returned to the matrimonial home she would be killed. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her father and uncle Om Parkash. Her father, uncle Om Parkash, Balwan and Bansi Mistri went to Village Piranwali but they were insulted by the accused and were pushed out of the house. On 8.12.1999, a report was made to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, who passed order on 9.12.1999 directing the S.H.O., Narnaund to take action in the matter. On these allegations, the present case was registered.

(3.) IN pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, only State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, has filed the reply dated 14.1.2002, wherein the stand taken by the petitioners have been denied and the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 are stated to have been substantiated. Respondent No. 2 had not chosen to file reply to the petition so as to controvert the allegations made therein. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parameters with regard to quashing of the FIR are well settled. Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. While exercising the powers so vested, it has to be kept in mind that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be scuttled at the initial stage of investigation unless it can be spelled out that no case is made out at all. Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings has to be done sparingly and with circumspection. Coming to the facts of the present case, definite stand has been taken by the petitioners in the petition that Smt. Nirmala, petitioner No. 1 is married to Rajinder Kumar. She has three children and is presently residing at Village Ghari Ajima, Tehsil Narnaud, District Hisar along with her husband and children. In support of the stand taken, copy of ration-card Annexure P.1 has been placed on record. Murti, petitioner No. 2 is married to Karam Singh and has four minor children and has been residing with them at House No. 959, Ward-12, Shiv Nagar, Hisar. She has placed on record copy of ration card Annexure P-2. Suman Devi, petitioner No. 3 is married to Kamal Singh and has children and is presently residing in Surat, Gujarat, along with children. Sharda, petitioner No. 4 is married to Baljit Singh and has two minor children and she has been residing in H.No. 33, Mahesh Nagar, Hisar along with her family. Copy of ration card Annexure-P.3 has been placed on record.