SHAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 11.04.2012, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, registered at Police Station, City Phagwara.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Sumita Sharma-respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 (aged about 72 years) is mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is married sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant and is living separately along with her husband, minor children and old parents-in-law in H.No.73, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. The police had arrested both Anil Kumar (husband of the complainant) and Promila Sharma-petitioner No.2 on 12.04.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.04.2012, they were released on bail. Petitioner No.1 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2012 passed in CRMM- 14415-2012 titled as 'Shamla Devi Vs. State of Punjab'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that after registration of FIR (Annexure P-1), investigation was carried out and as per challan dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure P-6), recovery of istridhan i.e. washing machine, sofa set etc. was effected. Those articles were taken in Truck bearing registration No. HP-14-5018 by the complainant with the help of Phagwara Police on 15.04.2012. Hence, the allegations of entrustment of dowry articles are not made out against the present petitioners. Another allegation against the petitioners was that on 21.04.2010, all the accused had tried to kill the complainant by burning her alive and the matter was reported to the police. Thereafter, on 11.06.2010, she gave Rs. 50,000.00 to all the accused persons to fulfill their greed by withdrawing Rs. 48,000.00 from HDFC bank. She had been turned out of her matrimonial house. The accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000.00 and a Maruti car from her parents. Learned counsel has referred to the information (Annexure P-3) received from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (Fire and Emergency Services), as per which, on 21.04.2010, there was fire in the refrigerator (double door) of the complainant and the said fire was caused due to jot. He has further referred to the tickets (Annexure P-4, colly.) from Delhi to Bangkok on 12.06.2010, which were booked by the complainant. It has been argued that the complainant had withdrawn Rs. 48,000.00 on 11.06.2010 for purchasing the aforesaid tickets and thereafter, she had gone to Bangkok with her husband on 12.06.2010. As per allegations in the FIR, this money, in no manner, was given to the present petitioners. He has further argued that the allegation of demand of Maruti Car and Rs. 50,000.00 is general in nature. Petitioner No.1 being 72 years old lady and petitioner No.2 having been residing separately on the second floor of the house in question, are not expected to get any benefit from Rs. 50,000.00 and the Maruti Car, as it would, at best, have been used by the complainant herself or her husband.