ANOOPKUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSENESSLY , the facts, which require to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, are that, the marriage of complainant Smt.Mukesh respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with main accused Ashok Sangwan, on 17.6.2003, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents were stated to have spent about Rs.12 lacs on the marriage beyond their capacity and gave one Santro car, fridge, TV, washing machine and gold ornaments, but the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Her sister- in-law Smt.Suresh Suhag and mother-in-law Sehaj Kaur started proclaiming that neither she (complainant) is well educated according to their status nor her parents have given dowry articles as per their standard. They should have given Honda City Car, cash of Rs. 5 lacs and Bracelet. The other accused were also siding with them. They demanded a Bracelet and her parents gave Rs. 20,000/- in cash to her husband in lieu of Bracelet.

(2.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that her husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law misappropriated her dowry articles and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, whereas the remaining accused sided with them. In the background of these allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against accused Ashok Sangwan (husband) and others, by virtue of FIR No.78 dated 18.3.2009 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the complainant-respondent No.2 did not file any reply to controvert the specific allegations contained in the petition, however, the State of Haryana has refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The prosecution alleged that since there are allegations that the petitioner alongwith his other co-accused harassed the complainant, so, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR, qua him, is made out. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that respondent No.1 has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR (Annexure P3). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that State of Haryana has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.