Crl.Misc. No.M-21491 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-21491 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 08,2011 Neelam and another ................. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab None for respondent No.2 **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal Complaint No. 172/1 titled as `Monika Vs. Suresh Kumar and others' (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 406,498-A read with Section 34 IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were residing at Amritsar. The complainant had been mainly residing in her parental home as her husband was posted at different places. Petitioners had no occasion to interfere in the Crl.Misc. No.M-21491 of 2010 (O&M) 2 matrimonial life of respondent No.2. In fact on one occasion, a compromise has been effected between the complainant and her husband (Annexure P5). In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Anguri Devi etc. Vs. State of Punjab etc. 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 431 wherein it was held as under:- "Lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly,sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. In the present case, the petitioners are the relatives who are admittedly residing separately. No specific allegation is alleged. The allegation, if at all, do not satisfy the definition of cruelty or misappropriation. No offence under Section 406 or 498-A is made out." Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Kulwinder and others vs. Asha Rani 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 358 wherein it was held as under:- "In the statement of the complainant, which was treated as FIR., it is alleged that at the time of engagement , parents of the complainant gave certain dowry items and on the marriage day also, certain dowry items were given out of which, it is alleged, that a cooler was given to Vidya, a sewing machine was given to Seema and a Mixi was given to Kulwinder. When all the dowry articles taking it as stri- dhan were handed over to husband or his father, there is no occasion of a cooler or Mixi or Sewing Machine being given Crl.Misc. No.M-21491 of 2010 (O&M) 3 separately to the three unmarried sisters as a trust property to be restored to the bride of which misappropriation may have taken at their instance. These allegations have been made merely to implicate the unmarried sisters of the husband with a view to harass them on account of their relationship with the husband." None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1) reveals that the specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The complainant has averred that at the time of her marriage with Suresh Kumar on 27.11.2003, certain dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners. The petitioners had been instigating the other co- accused to get rid of the complainant as they wanted to solemnize the second marriage of accused No.1- Suresh Kumar with a girl of their choice. On 16.7.2008, a compromise was effected between the parties. On 1.10.2008 at about 4.00 a.m., the mother in law of the complainant set herself ablazed. Petitioners started beating the complainant and turned her back of the matrimonial home. Since there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage. The fact that a compromise has been effected between the parties have been duly disclosed by the complainant in the complaint filed by her. It has been averred in the complaint that after the compromise, when the complainant returned back to the matrimonial home, she was thrown out of the same by Crl.Misc. No.M-21491 of 2010 (O&M) 4 the petitioners after giving the beating to her. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail to advance the case of the petitioners as they are based on different facts. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 arya