SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 71, dated February 8, 1989 registered at P.S. Ambala City. These proceedings are pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala City, under Sections 406, 498-A, 504, 506 and 120-B, I.P.C. All the petitioners accused persons are residents of Hoshiarpur and are facing the criminal case at Ambala.

(2.) The Criminal case arose from a complaint of Meena Kumari (respondent No. 2) alleging illegal demand of refrigerator, television, washing machine, fan etc. as the articles of dowry from her parents at the time of her marriage on July 28, 1987. She alleged that her parents met all the demands raised by the accused persons. Besides the aforementioned articles, gold and silver jewellery and cash were also given. The accused persons named in the complaint are the husband, Narinder Kumar Jain, his mother Smt. Shanti Devi, his brother Vipin Kumar Jain and brother's wife Mohini. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused persons made the demand of more dowry after marriage and started humiliating her. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded for starting a new business by her husband. She was not taken to his house by her husband as the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was not paid by her father. She, however, after some time went to her husband's house but the accused persons started harassing, humiliating and beating her for not bringing money and other articles from her parents. She was turned out of the house in July, 1988. The articles given to her at the time of her marriage were sold by them. They came to her father's house on November 20, 1988 at Ambala City and gave abuses to her and her mother. They again demanded Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the allegations in the complaint are very vague. The date and time in respect of the demand of more dowry have not been mentioned. No specific allegation is made as to which article was given to which accused and when the demand for its return was made. It is also not stated as to when the articles were sold away by the accused persons. The learned Counsel has contended that the complaint is based on false and frivolous allegations. The entire family has been falsely implicated.