VIPIN SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Vipin Sehgal, Swami Dayal Sehgal, Smt.Madhu Sehgal and Gaurav Sehgal have filed this petition against respondents State of Haryana, SHO, Police Station, Sector -5 Panchkula and Isha Sehgal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.57 dated 09.02.2013 under Sections 406, 498 -A, 312, 323 and 120 -B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

(2.) IT is mainly stated in the petition that FIR No.57 dated 09.02.2013 has been registered at the instance of respondent No.3. The petitioners are parents and two sons residing at Agra. Petitioner No.1 is the eldest son of petitioners No.2 and 3, while petitioner No.4 is the youngest son. Petitioner No.2 is running his jewellery shop under the name and style of Lala Pritam Das Jewellers at Agra. The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.3 was settled through internet. Father of respondent No.3 is the property dealer working at Panchkula. Marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized at Zirakpur on 27.06.2012. It is further stated in the petition that respondent No.3 during her stay with petitioner No.1, kept on pressurizing him to have a separate accommodation and to start his own business preferably at Panchkula, which was not acceptable to petitioner No.1. On 26.08.2012, parents of respondent No.3 brought respondent No.3 back to Panchkula and till date, respondent No.3 is residing with her parents. It is also stated in the petition that during the stay of respondent No.3 at Panchkula, she aborted her pregnancy in connivance with her parents and maternal grandmother. A complaint was lodged by petitioner No.1 to the SSP, Agra for registration of FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there are general and vague allegations against the petitioners and no allegation against petitioner No.4. He further argued that false FIR has been got registered by respondent No.3 -complainant against the petitioners, which is misuse of process of the law.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contested this petition and argued that there is no question of false implication of any of the family member. No allegations have been levelled against unmarried sister, who has not been implicated in the present case.