VIR M. KHOSLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Dr. Loveleen Arora was married to Dr. Sameer Arora at Jalandhar on 10.7.1989. Soon after the marriage, it ran into rough weather. The complainant mentioned that after few days before the marriage, her husband, his mother and both the petitioners Sangita Khosla and Vir Khosla had come to her house at Jalandhar. Sangita Khosla is the sister of the husband of the complainant and is married to Vir Khosla. They told the father of the petitioner that they would bring the marriage party only if the particular dowry articles are provided. The father of the complainant told them that he would do his utmost to provide the dowry articles. He could not purchase all the demanded articles. With the help of his friends and relatives he was able to get some of the dowry articles. The marriage was solemnized. On the date of the marriage also the petitioner and others approached the father of the complainant to show them the dowry articles.

(2.) AFTER the marriage both the petitioners and others stated maltreating the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry. The complainant informed her father. The father of the complainant sent a draft of Rs. 1,08,218.50 and another draft of Rs. 50,365/- for the purchase of car and other house-hold articles. The husband of the complainant opened the account in his name and the complainant and had withdrawn the entire amount. Thereupon, it was represented that, that money was hardly sufficient for purchase of house-hold articles. She was again maltreated and demand was made for bringing more dowry. So much so, the complainant sold her plot and took the money with her. But she was again maltreated badly and demand for Rs. 3 to 4 lacs was made so that the sister of her husband could be married.

(3.) PETITIONERS Vir M. Khosla and her wife Sangita Khosla seek quashing of the said first information report and the subsequent proceedings alleging that petitioner No. 1 Vir M. Khosla is running business at Delhi and petitioner No. 2 is a doctor. They had never made any demand for dowry and had never visited the house of the complainant before the marriage. There are no allegations against them. The complainant was living with her husband at Madras and there was no question of the petitioners harassing her.