RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions seeking quashing of FIR No.706 dated 14.8.2015 registered at Police Station City, District Karnal under Sections 342, 354, 376-B, 506, 509 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the petitions are being taken up together as it is the same FIR which has been challenged in both the petitions. While one petition i.e. CRM-M-3476- 2016 has been filed on behalf of petitioners Rattan Singh, Kamla Devi, Veena and Neelam, the other petition i.e. CRM-M-33219-2016 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Umed Singh Dhounchak.

(2.) The FIR, which is annexed as Annexure P-6 in both the petitions, was lodged at the instance of respondent No.3-Manju, wherein it has been alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner Umed Singh on 19.2.2007, wherein her parents had given various articles of dowry apart from an amount of Rs.5 lacs in cash. After her marriage, she resided with her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law at Gurgaon. It is alleged that since the complainant was not able to bear any child, she was harassed and tortured by her father-in-law Rattan Singh, mother-in-law Kamla Devi and sisters-in-law Meena and Neelam. It is alleged that her husband also used to support them for harassing her and due to which she, at times, went into depression. It is alleged that the accused conspired for getting the marriage of the complainant dissolved and her father-in-law Rattan Singh even threatened to commit suicide in order to pressurize the complainant to divorce her husband. It is alleged that on 11.9.2014 some petition was filed in the Court at Gurgaon and she was made to sign the same under pressure and was informed that the same is just a formality. It is further alleged that she was again taken to the Court on 12.3.2015 and on which date she was even threatened with a pistol. It is alleged that the complainant does not know that her marriage had been dissolved as she had been made to consume something and she was not able to understand as to what had transpired. It is alleged that even after divorce her husband continued establishing physical relations with her, which otherwise ought to be illegal as the marriage already stood dissolved. It is further alleged that after the divorce her father-in-law said that since the complainant could not bear child from her husband, therefore, the complainant will have to bear the same from the lions of her father-in-law and thus tried to develop illicit relations with the complainant. Upon the same being objected to by the complainant there was a scuffle. The complainant has further stated that her husband and his family were residing with the complainant from 12.3.2015 to 11.8.2015.

(3.) The complainant, thus, alleged that her husband, despite having taken a divorce, had been establishing physical relations with her and had thus committed an offence of rape and that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had also conspired and had forcibly kept her. It is further alleged that the divorce had been obtained by deceiving her. The complainant has stated therein that all the articles of dowry, which had been given by her parents, be got returned to her. The complainant has stated that on 12.8.2015, when she came to the rented premises where she had earlier been staying with her husband, she saw the documents pertaining to divorce and it was thereafter that she left for the office of her husband Umed Singh in order to confront him but he had already left from his office. Although she tried to contact him on his phone but he could not be contacted. It is alleged that all the accused had conspired and connived with each other for committing the offences in question.