SATYA BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satya Bir Singh, his father Ran Singh, mother Parmeshwari Devi and sister Rajo Devi have filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 186 recorded at Police Station Butana on 3/3/1990 under Sections 409/498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The impugned First Information report was lodged by Sushma Devi wife of Satya Bir Singh alleging that she was married to Satya Bir Singh on 25/6/1982 according to Hindu rites at Tarawari. At the time of her marriage her parents spent about Rs. 50,000.00 and gave sufficient dowry but the petitioners were not satisfied and time and again they pressurised her to bring money and more articles such as the scooter and the refrigerator. When she expressed her helplessness to fulfill the demand of the petitioners she was given beating and was subjected to electric shocks. Sometimes she brought money from her parents without the knowledge of her brothers which the petitioners retained. She was treated well for a short time but the petitioners resorted to some cruel acts and threatened to kill her. He left the house of the petitioners along with her daughter as her life was in danger.

(3.) The petitioners alleged that after marriage the complainant resided with them happily for a short time and when Satya Bir Singh petitioner No. 1 joined service he resumed separate residence with his wife and there was no occasion for any bickering between Sushma Rani and the other petitioners, Sushma Rani gave birth to two children and in December 1988 she went to her parents house to attend to her brothers wife who was expecting a child. Petitioner No. 1 paid two three visils to her to fetch her to her matrimonial home but she put him off on the ground that her brother's wife was not quite well. Ultimately when she did not return a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, for restitution of conjugal rights. As a Counter blast Sushma Rani lodged the impugned First Information Report Annexure P-1. It was further pleaded that the First Information Report did not disclose any offence because the allegations were quite vague and indefinite and there was nothing to suggest as to what articles of dowry were entrusted to which of the petitioners and at what time.