SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sita Ram, his wife Smt. Prem Lata, son Ganga Dhar, Suman wife of Ganga Dhar, Sunil son of Sita Ram, and Rama wife of Sunil have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of FIR No. 135 dated 13.8.1996 under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC registered in Police Station City Dadri, District Bhiwani against the State of Haryana and Smt. Bindu, daughter of Ganga Ram, alleging that the aforesaid FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with an oblique motive to pressurize, harass and humiliate the petitioners.

(2.) FIR in this case was lodged on the statement of Smt. Bindu, respondent No. 2 under Section 498A IPC and the major allegations of the FIR can be described in the following manner : Smt. Bindu stated that her marriage was solemnised on 30.11.1995 with Satish Kumar (non-applicant). Her Jeth Ganga Dhar, Jethani Suman were exerting pressure upon her father for spending more and more money. As the date of marriage was approaching fast, her father-in-law, Sita Ram, her Jeth Ganga Dhar and her Jethani Suman started demanding more dowry. It has also been alleged by the complainant that at the time of her marriage and Teeka, the demand of aforesaid persons went up to Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and other valuable things such as Fridge, Colour TV, and VCR etc. In pursuance to this demand, her father gave Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and other valuable articles to her in-laws under pressure in the form of gifts. Likewise at the time of marriage the aforesaid persons tried to extract more cash.

(3.) THE submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that FIR vis-a-vis the present petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as there are no specific allegations constituting the offences much less under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted by Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts at Dadri, and Dadri Police had no jurisdiction to register the FIR and try the case and the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant, it arose at Mohindergarh.