TARA CHAND GARG Vs. GEETU AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint (copy Annexure P1), filed by Mrs. Geetu Aggarwal, through her General Power of Attorney, Shri Faquir Chand Aggarwal, resident of House No. 107, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. The complainant/respondent, Mrs. Geetu Aggarwal, is residing in USA at the address mentioned in the complaint (i. e. C/o Mr. Ram T. Bitta, 12006, Weather field Lane, Potomac, MD 20854, USA ). The impugned complaint was filed under Section 406/34, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh. The petitioners also seek the quashing of the impugned order of summoning (copy Annexure P2 ).

(2.) THE petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, i. e. Tara Chand Garg and his wife, Mrs. Lakshmi Devi Garg, are parents-in-law of the complainant.

(3.) IT is alleged that on the next day of the marriage, i. e. on 2. 12. 1991, accused No. 3, Mrs. Lakshmi Devi Garg, mother-in-law of the complainant with the help of her son-Lokesh Garg, husband of the complainant, opened the locks of the sky bags containing the aforesaid ornaments and sarees etc. of the complainant. Some of the costly sarees were given to the relations of the husband of the complainant, against her wishes. It is further alleged that after a couple of days of the marriage, the accused persons made the complainant to hand over the gold and diamond jewellery which she was wearing, to her mother-in-law on the pretext of security and she Was asked to bring light sets of gold ornaments from her parents for daily use. Thereafter the accused left for Delhi and after staying there for some days, the parents-in-law of the complainant went to Guwahati and the husband of the complainant, i. e. accused No. 1, went to USA. Her parents-in-law took all the gold and diamond jewellery with them to Guwahati, where accused No. 1, Lokesh Garg was employed during those days. The complainant lived with her parents at Chandigarh, as she was studying at that time. It was further alleged that Lokesh Garg, husband of the complainant, filed a petition against her on 1. 10. 1992 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act through his attorney Tara Chand Garg/ accused No. 2 and got the said petition dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the parties had compromised the dispute. The complainant alleged that her in-laws demanded a sum of Rs. five lacs from her parents on the plea of expenses to be incurred in USA on the studies of the complainant, as they were not satisfied with the dowry already given. It is mentioned that a sum of Rs. two lacs was paid by her parents to her mother-in-law in the first week of November, 1992. The comply. . . . it left for USa alongwith her husband on 9. 11. 1992 and they returned to India in the last week of August, 1993. In the meantime, husband of the complainant filed another petition seeking divorce in a superior Court of Chatham Country, USA, by concealing the facts and obtained a decree of divorce on 12. 1. 1995. The complainant is residing in USA since 13. 12. 1994. It is further alleged that the complainant wrote letters to her parents-in-law requesting them to return the dowry articles to her father. She also made a request to her husband to return the said dowry articles. A rare painting of the complainant is also alleged to be with accused No. 4/rakesh Garg, brother of her husband, which was also not returned.