KHINNI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a criminal misc. petition filed by Dayawati's mother-in-law Khinni, sisters-in-law (nanads), sister-in-law Guddi's husband, maternal uncle-in-law and husband's cousin, under section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby they have sought the quashing of FIR No. 44 of 1995, registered at Police Station, Bawani-Khera under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC.

(2.) FOR understanding the facts in a proper perspective, the facts as narrated by Dayawati are necessary to be given.

(3.) IT is averred in this criminal petition by the petitioners that there is no specific detail of any ill-treatment attributed to any of them. The allegations with respect to Section 506 IPC are vague. Smt. Khinni is aged. Petitioner No. 2 was married in 1977 and is putting up with her husband, who is serving in the army in Nagaland. Petitioner No. 3 is her youngest married sister-in-law putting up with her in-laws. She was married only one year ago. Petitioner No. 4 is husband of Guddi-sister-in-law, putting up in a separate village far away from the village of her husband. Petitioner No. 5 is her husband's cousin residing in District Jhunjhaunu in Rajasthan. Petitioner No. 6 is aged maternal uncle of her husband residing in village Kural, Teh. Loharu. There could be no question of petitioners' ill-treating/harassing Smt. Dayawati. They have been named in the FIR mala fide with a view to humiliate and pressurise her husband. The allegations are un-specific and vague so far as cruelty is concerned. No date/time is given. There is no mention of the manner in which she was subjected to cruelty. No offence under Section 498A IPC is made out.