NACHHATAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent-Gurdeep Kaur is the wife of Lakhminder Singh. The first petitioner-Nachhatar Kaur is the mother and the second petitioner-Dilbagh Singh is the father respectively of the said Lakhminder Singh. Lakhminder Singh married the second respondent-Gurdeep Kaur on 13.2.1993. Father of the second respondent Baldev Singh preferred a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Jagadhri, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, a copy of which is annexure, P.1. He has shown as accused 1 to 3 Lakhminder Singh (husband), father-in-law Dilbagh Singh and mother-in-law Nachhatar Kaur. He has alleged that the marriage between Gurdeep Kaur and Lakhminder Singh took place on 13.2.1993, and that valuable articles were given to Lakhminder Singh and father-in-law at the time of marriage. According to him, she was given normal treatment for 3 or 4 months after marriage and thereafter, she was treated in an inhuman manner. He has alleged that even physical force was used against her to exert pressure upon her to fetch Rs. one lac for the purchase of the Maruti car. The father of Gurdeep Kaur has also alleged that on 9.11.1993, in the presence of his daughter, he gave a sum of Rs. 38,000/- to Lakhminder Singh by raising a loan, in view of the fact that his daughter Gurdeep Kaur was forced by all the accused persons to fetch money. He has further alleged that Lakhminder Singh who was running a shop compelled Gurdeep Kaur to bring Rs. 15,000/- from him (complainant) for purchase of increasing the stock for his shop, and that in order to secure the happiness of the daughter and her peaceful domestic life, he gave this amount to the mother-in-law Nachhatar Kaur. He has alleged that the accused were not completely satisfied, but, continued to maltreat and torture Gurdeep Kaur, and when they were convinced that she will not meet their further demands, they started beating Gurdeep Kaur, as a result of which Gurdeep Kaur was admitted in Gabba Hospital, Yamunanagar, for treatment. He has also alleged that mother-in-law Nachhatar Kaur persistently taunted Gurdeep Kaur since she had not brought the Maruti car as dowry. Similar demand was made by Lakhminder Singh and Dilbagh Singh also. He has also alleged that Gurdeep Kaur was assaulted by all the accused at the night between 5th and 6th Oct, 1994. According to him, he went along with Sarpanch of the village Dr. Sohinder Kumar, Subedar Charan Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Tarlochan Singh on 7.10.94, and requested them to behave in a civilized manner, which they did not listen to. Therefore, he requested action may be taken against all the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. It is to quash this FIR Nachhatar Kaur the mother-in-law, Dilbagh Singh father-in-law respectively of Gurdeep Kaur have come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE first respondent-State and the second respondent-Gurdeep Kaur, who was impleaded subsequently, have filed separate replies opposing this application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR does not show a case, much more under Section 498-A IPC, that the allegations therein are vague, and that the allegation that Gurdeep Kaur was given beatings is falsified by medical evidence. But, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are vague or that a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC is not made out. I have pointed out above in detail the several allegations found in the complaint, which will go to show that Gurdeep Kaur and her father Baldev Singh were harassed for extracting more dowry. Once these allegations are proved, then Section 498-A IPC will be attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Gurdeep Kaur had given a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and that there were some contradictions between the complaint and the statement of Gurdeep Kaur. But this is not the stage to critically examine the allegations made in the FIR. Similarly learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that though Gurdeep Kaur was stated to have been assaulted by the petitioners and her husband and was admitted to Gabba Hospital, the annexure P3 attached with this petition only shows that she was suffering from depression and that there was no mark of injury on her body. As pointed out already the Court has at this stage, only to find out whether the allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out a case. It is unnecessary to find out whether these allegations are true or not on the basis of any material or evidence collected by the petitioner, herein, or anybody else.