BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALWINDER Kumar Sharma and others in this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Seek quashing of FIR No. 517 of 1991 registered at P.S. Sonepat for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code. The impugned FIR was got registered by Rajni Sharma by moving an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat.

(2.) THE averment made in the application may be briefly stated. Rajni Sharma was married to Balwinder Sharma on 9.12.1990 and the relations including Harbans Lal Sharma, the father, Krishna Devi and mother, attended that Marriage. A dowry was given as detailed in para 1 of the application. The whole of the package was given to Harbans Lal and Rajinder Kumar (a brother-in-law of the husband). The doli was taken to Faridabad but the petitioners were not satisfied with the articles of dowry and they started taunting her. It was pointed out that the clothes given were of cheap quality and beds given has already been used while T.V., V.C.R. and Cooler had not been given. She was asked to bring these articles and she could stay in the house only thereafter. They also took back the articles of 'Wari' which had been given to her at the time of marriage. That when she came to visit her parents at Sonepat in the company of her husband she disclosed all the facts to her parents and brother who explained to Balwinder Kumar that they had already spent beyond their capacity. Even Manohar Lal Syal tried to prevail upon Balwinder Kumar to see reasons but he being adamant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was borrowed from Manohar Lal Syal and given to Balwinder Kumar and then Rajni Sharma accompanied by her husband returned to Faridabad. On return to Faridabad, however, the member of her in-law's family felt annoyed and told her tauntingly that atleast the cash necessary for purchase of T.V., V.C.R. and Cooler should have been brought. She was the deprived of the articles of Jewellery and told that the same shall be returned only when the other demands are met. When her brother and his friends came with clothes for Lohri, Taunting remarks were made about those articles. Balwinder Kumar and her sister's husband are transporters and their truck met with an accident and she was given a beating on the pretext that she was unlucky and her arrival had caused destruction. Pressure was put on her that she should bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents to meet the expenses of repairs of the truck. That she was being subjected to beatings almost daily and her cries used to attract the neighbours and fearing that the same shall bring bad name to them, they shifted their residence to a new residence in Sector 17. That 3-4 days after the Baisakahi, she went to kitchen to prepare tea at the asking of her sister-in-law where her own Dupatta caught fire and when she threw it away and raised cries, her sister-in-law caught hold of her and thrusted cloth in he mouth and locked her inside a room where she was kept hungry. On the following morning she was taken out and her signatures were obtained on 3-4 papers. On receiving her letter, which she had been able to despatch secretly, her parents brought a panchayat who tried to prevail upon her husband against such conduct but the Panchayat was also insulted and it was stated that Rajni Sharma will be able to live in the house only after the demands for T.V., V.C.R and Cooler are met. After their departure she was then given beating till the next day and on the night of 6th May 1992 she was turned out of the house. She contacted Ved Parkash and narrated all the facts to him. Thereafter she had written letters to her husband but the same had no effect. That articles of dowry and Istri Dhanna have not been returned.

(3.) THERE is force in the contention of learned counsel. I have given a detailed account of the allegations made in the application moved by Smt. Rajni Sharma and therein allegations of cruelty are made with respect to the period when she stayed in her in-laws house which admittedly was at Faridabad. The police at Sonepat had thus no jurisdiction to investigate this matter.