ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE (U T CHANDIGARH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing FIR No. 37 dated 21.3.1997, under Sections 498 -A/406, 307, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Stalion East Sector 26 Chandigarh, with a further prayer to quash the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Ms. Seema wife of Anil Kumar, resident of House No. 2207 -A, Sector 27C, Chandigarh, made a complaint to the police of Police Station East Sector 26, Chandigarh wherein it has been alleged that she was married with Anil Kumar son of Roshan Lal on 5.6.1993 according to Hindu Rites. Her mother -in -law, father -in -law and Parveen younger brother of her husband, were also residing with them in the same house. Anil Kumar and his father are running grossery shops in Sector 37 -D and Sector 8, respectively. Parveen Kumar some time used to work with his father and some time with his brother Anil Kumar. Out of this wed -lock a son was born. She alleged that her husband and other members of the family of her in -laws physically and mentally tortured her for bringing insufficient dowry. She made a complaint regarding that to her father who gave Rs. 60,000/ - to Anil Kumar, my husband. Despite this fact that her father had given an amount of Rs. 60,000/ - to Anil Kumar still they continued harassing and taunting her. They used to compel her to bring money for her expenditure from her father, failing which she would be done to death. On 19.3.1997 her mother -in -law and brother -in -law Parveen Kumar attempted to kill herby throatling. This fact was also disclosed by her to her father. At this her father -in -law, mother -in -law and brother -in -law tendered apology regarding the incident and they assured that they would not harass her. In the absence of male members of the family her mother -in -law Kanta caught hold of her forcibly and put two tablets of phenyl in her mouth out of which one tablet of phenyl fell out -side and one went inside her mouth. In the meanwhile her father -in -law arrived there, who removed the ornaments worn by her. On these allegations the above said FIR was registered.

(3.) IT has been contended by the petitioners that the complainant has already received all the articles of Istridhan from all the petitioners and the same are not in their possession. They denied the allegations contained in the first information report describing the same to be false. Their case further is that now all the misunderstanding have been removed and almost all the dowry articles have been returned to respondent No. 2. In fact the parties have compromised the matter, which was reduced into writing on 6.1.1998 and signed by both the parties. That compromise is annexed as Annexure P -1 with the petition. It is also their case that the liquid taken from the stomach of respondent No. 2 was sent to the Director, F.S.L. Chandigarh, but no common poison could be detected. A photostat copy of the report of the Laboratory is annexed as annexure P -2 with the petition.