JITENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jitender, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 241 dated 2.7.2012 registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (devar) of Archana, respondent No.2. According to him, she has involved her husband, parents-in-law and the petitioner in the case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been a student and has now been appointed as Administrative Officer with Indian Oil Corporation on 3.6.2012. According to him, respondent No. 2 stayed at her matrimonial home with her parents-in-law for one year and thereafter shifted to Delhi as her husband has been a Constable with Delhi police. According to him, Archana made a complaint to D.C.P. of the area against her husband and she has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner. In this regard, he has referred to Annexure P2, a copy of the complaint made by Archana, respondent No.2 to the D.C.P. (Outer District), Delhi. He has further submitted that there is no allegation of any entrustment of dowry articles and, therefore, no offence under section 498-A IPC is made out. He has placed reliance on a number of decisions in this case. The first is a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 812, where the tendency to implicate the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute is noticed. He has cited other three decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Mohinder Kaur & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2010 2 RCR(Cri) 597, Ram Sarup Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 6 RCR(Cri) 1835 and Smt. Preeti Bulagan and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 775.

(3.) Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner had been a student only at the time of alleged harassment of Archana by her in-laws and he was in a position to harass her. He has further submitted that the complaint to D.C.P., Delhi was not required to refer to the petitioner because the petitioner was not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the DCP.