GIRISH MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Girish Malhotra and Sneh Lata have brought the above mentioned two petitions under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 511 dated 9.7.2011 (Annexure P5) registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) This is a case of marriage that was solemnized on 18.4.2010, the day when the petitioners and others came to the place of the complainant, Neeru Monga for approving her for marriage with Rajiv Malhotra. Though, the parents of the complainant tried to postpone the marriage saying that they had not made any preparation, yet the side of the petitioners insisted on the marriage on the same day. After giving the details of the festivities arranged hurriedly and the items given in the marriage, the complainant has claimed in the FIR that she was harassed by the accused in connection with demand of dowry saying that nothing was given in the marriage. She has also claimed that they were comparing the dowry brought by Sneh Lata, one of the petitioners before me, with the items she brought. She also claims that on the demands made upon her, a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs for purchase of a car, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for Air Conditioner and inverter and another sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for making up for the purchase price of Swift car were given but still peace could not be bought for the complainant at her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner, Girish Malhotra is brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant, Neeru Monga, while Sneh Lata is her jethani. He has submitted that besides the two, the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant are also involved in this case. According to him, there is tendency now a days of involving all the family members of the husband. According to him, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. He has further submitted that the complainant alongwith her husband were separated from the remaining members of the family and they had started living separately. According to him, the allegations against the petitioners, if any, are of a period after they had started living separately and, therefore, the case got registered against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the law.

(3.) Learned State counsel has admitted that the complainant had been living separately with her husband and the remaining members of the family had been living separately. According to him, she lived jointly with her in-laws for some days only. He, however, could not specify the period during which she lived in the joint family.