GURMEL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No. 121 dated 30.4.2004, under Section 406, 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Mohali, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh had got married to Jaspreet Kaur on 24.2.2003. At the time of marriage, petitioners had come to India from Netherlands whereas Jaspreet Kaur had come from America. Thereafter, Jaspreet Kaur left with the petitioners for Netherlands on 10.3.2003. Jaspreet Kaur then left for America on 6.6.2003. FIR in question was registered by respondent No. 3, uncle of Jaspreet Kaur, on 30.4.2004 against the petitioners. No cause of action had arisen in India. Jaspreet Kaur had got a decree of divorce in America on 4.4.2005 and, had, thereafter got re -married.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR.

(3.) IN the present case, FIR has been got registered by complainant Tejinder Singh Sandhu against the petitioners levelling allegations that his niece Jaspreet Kaur was married to petitioner Tarlochanjit Singh. After marriage, Jaspreet Kaur was harassed by the petitioners on account of insufficiency of dowry whereas sufficient dowry had been given at the time of her marriage.