CRM No. M-23794 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23794 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2009 Harbans Kaur @ Basso ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Bimal Maini, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition for quashing of the FIR bearing No.249 dated 18th May, 2008, registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. The FIR was lodged by Shashi Bala complainant stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Raghbir Singh on 4th May, 2003. The marriage was solemnized with great pomp and show. Out of the wedlock, one daughter Shivani was born on 8.9.2006. Dowry articles including gold and silver jewelry furniture, clothes, cash, utensils and other valuable gifts were given to the accused at the time of marriage. However, the petitioner was maltreated just after some days of marriage. She was subjected to harassment by the petitioner and her co-accused. According to the allegations in the FIR, the complainant CRM No. M-23794 of 2008 2 was given beating for demand of dowry. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by her husband and mother-in-law (petitioner). This demand was also met by the complainant's family. However, the harassment of the petitioner continued particularly after a female child was born to her. She was given severe beating in the night of 21st December, 2007. Next day, the complainant rang up her parents, who took her alongwith them. According to the allegations, the petitioner was subjected to grave mental and physical cruelty by the petitioner and her co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant and her husband were having separate residence and thus petitioner had no occasion to meddle in their day-to-day affairs. He has further submitted that allegations in the FIR are very general in nature and on the basis of the same, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the plea for quashing of the FIR. He has referred to the reply filed on behalf of the State and submitted that a thorough investigation was conducted before submitting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The investigating agency did not find any evidence to the effect that the complainant and her husband were living separately from the petitioner. The investigating agency, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law. According to the counsel, there is sufficient evidence available with the prosecution to show that the petitioner was guilty of the crime alleged. CRM No. M-23794 of 2008 3 He has further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are specific and not general in nature. He has also submitted that fairness of the investigation can be gathered from the fact that daughter of the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused as no evidence was found against her. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the FIR shows that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of meting out mental and physical cruelty to the complainant. This apart, there are specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles and cruelty for demand of more dowry. The investigating agency conducted a thorough investigation and name of the petitioner figured as an accused in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It found sufficient evidence against the petitioner to be sent up for trial. No substance was found in the stand of the petitioner that the complainant and her husband were separate in residence and mess and thus petitioner had no role to play in day-to-day affairs of the couple. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for quashing of the FIR in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The trial is already in progress. Facts of the case require that evidence should come on record for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion for quashing the FIR. The same cannot be decided in inherent jurisdiction of this court. There is nothing to show at this stage that the offences CRM No. M-23794 of 2008 4 alleged, are not made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the conduct of the investigation or the proceedings thereafter. I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 27, 2009 'rajpal'