RAVINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of order dtd. 2/11/2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby order dtd. 17/11/2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra vide which respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been discharged in FIR No. 362 registered under Ss. 323, 342, 406, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Thanesar, Kurukshetra, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the petitioner-complainant and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 20/11/2011 in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. The petitioner was 1.5 months pregnant when respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused spiked her juice with some medicine that caused termination of the said pregnancy. Moreover, respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused were constantly harassing the petitioner to bring more dowry. Owing to the same, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000.00 on 25/11/2011. On the same day, respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused started demanding for a bigger car as the petitioner had brought an Alto car in dowry. The petitioner was beaten, starved, attempted to strangled and threatened that this treatment will continue till she brings them a bigger car. Respondent No.2 also subjected the petitioner to non-consensual unnatural sex. He further stated that he has illicit relations with one Aman and one Kulvinder Kaur, and that he wants to marry Kulvinder Kaur. Further, respondent No.2 threatened to implicate the petitioner and her family in false cases by exercising his political influence. Ultimately, on 12/8/2012, the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial home. Subsequently, on 2/10/2013, respondent No.2 arrived at the workplace of the petitioner and threatened to kill her. He also called the petitioner on 25/8/2014 and threatened to kill her again. The stridhan of the petitioner was entrusted to the respondents-accused, however, they have declined to return the same to her.

(3.) Based on the material available, the learned trial Court discharged respondent Nos.2 to 4-accused vide order dtd. 17/11/2015(Annexure P-1) citing lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate Court, however the revision petition filed by her was dismissed vide order dtd. 2/11/2016 (Annexure P-3).