GURPREET GROVER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed for quashing FIR No. 03 dated 3.1.2011 registered at Police Station, City Gurdaspur District Gurdaspur for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") (Annexure P-1) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that Gurpreet Grover, the petitioner is the married sister-in-law (Nanad) of complainant Amandeep Kaur (respondent No. 2) and marriage of the petitioner with Balwinder Singh was performed on 2.11.2008. The complainant was married to brother of the petitioner in November 2009, more than one year after marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner is leading a happy married life during her stay in the matrimonial home. Her parents are residents of Ludhiana whereas the petitioner and her husband are residing in Patiala. The petitioner has nothing to do with the marital affairs of Amandeep Kaur and Manpreet Singh. She has been indicted in the crime by raising general and omnibus allegations with an intent to involve all the family members of Manpreet Singh including his parents, married sister (petitioner) as well as her husband namely Balwinder Singh. During investigation, Balwinder Singh was found innocent and challan has been presented against other accused. It is argued with vehemence that no specific allegation has been raised against the petitioner in regard to entrustment of any article of stridhan of the complainant or she being subjected to torture, maltreatment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is further argued that vague and general allegations raised by the complainant cannot be allowed to subject the petitioner to criminal proceedings which are bound to cause untold misery to the petitioner who is leading a happy married life with her husband.

(3.) Counsel for the contesting respondent would contend that respondent No. 2 was married on 22.11.2009 and she was turned out of matrimonial home on 31.10.2010 after being made to suffer at the hands of the accused including the petitioner due to accused being not satisfied with the dowry given to the complainant by her parents at the time of marriage as well as in connection with demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not resident of Patiala and she raised false allegations in regard to her stay at Patiala to facilitate obtaining an order of bail and proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are pending in the Court for raising false allegations regarding her stay at Patiala. According to counsel, the petitioner was staying at Mohali and the complainant and her husband were also residing at Mohali and the petitioner had been unnecessarily interfering in the affairs of the complainant and causing her mental torture by taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry and showing a poor show at the time of marriage for not giving a swift car and other articles including gold chain for the petitioner.