Criminal Misc. No.M-21256 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-21256 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.11.2009 Mahender Nath @ Mahender Singh and another ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and othera ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Niranjan Singh, Advocate for Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Patter, Senior Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3- complainant. S. D. ANAND, J. The present plea, for quashment of FIR (No.40 dated 10.8.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat) at the hands of the petitioner (who are parents-in- law of their estranged daughter-in-law), deserves to be allowed for the reasons indicated hereunder:- Respondent no.3 was married to Parveen Kumar, a son of the petitioner on 20.11.2003. There is no specific averment qua the petitioners in the course of the FIR-Annexure P-3. If one peruses it, it would be seen that only vague allegation against the petitioners is that they and other members of the family had been harassing her 'on account of dowry'. The further allegation, in the context, was that they would not get her medical treatment when she needed it and they would always tell her Criminal Misc. No.M-21256 of 2008 -2- **** that she should send for somebody from her natal side to pay for the treatment. Yet another allegation in continuity is that petitioners and other members of their family told the first informant that she should bring a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her natal house to meet the expenditure on her treatment and it is only on her being able to bring that cash amount then treatment would be provided to her in future. It is not the averment on behalf of the State (in the course of the reply or otherwise) that Investigating Agency had been able to collect any other evidence to nail the petitioners on a charge of having raised a demand for dowry. The petitioners have already disinherited Parveen Kumar by issuance of a public notice (Annexure P-4). Their separate ration card (Annexure P-1) is available on record and so also is the Ration Card in the name of their son Parveen Kumar and his estranged wife. In the light of the above noticed facts, allowing the prosecution against the petitioners/parents-in-law to continue would be travesty and abuse of process of law. The petition shall stand allowed. The prosecution pending FIR (No.40 dated 10.8.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Women Cell, Sonepat) shall stand quashed qua the petitioners before this Court. November 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE