IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-29500 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2011 Santosh Sethi & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.33 dated 5.10.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station, Women Cell, Old Rohtak Road, Sonepat. 2. It has been pleaded that respondent No.2, Suchita Sethi was married to Vinay Sethi. Petitioner No.2 is the paternal Crl. Misc. No. M-29500 of 2010 [2] uncle of Vinay Sethi. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.2. Marriage between Vinay Sethi and Suchita Sethi (respondent No.2) was solemnised on 2.12.2008 at Sonepat. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and her husband lived alongwith parents of Vinay Sethi at Mehsana (Gujarat State). 3. It has been pleaded that the petitioners who are living in Sonepat, have had no concern with the matrimonial life of respondent No.2. Even as per allegations, Narender Sethi (petitioner No.2) might have arranged the marriage of respondent No.2 with Vinay Sethi being relative, however, it has been pleaded that because the petitioners were living in their home in Sonepat, at a far distance from the matrimonial home of respondent No.2, it is not even conceivable that respondent No.2 was harassed for not bringing dowry. Be that as it may, the petitioners would not have gained anything from the dowry, if any, brought by respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he has no instructions in the matter. All the efforts to contact respondent No.2 have failed. 5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 6. As per para 4 in the FIR, it has been said that petitioner No.2 did not eat food on the pretext that food was not Crl. Misc. No. M-29500 of 2010 [3] good, before departure of doli, and was making excuses that water was not served in a sealed glass. Other than that, there are no specific allegations in regard to specific demand for dowry or harassment, having been caused to respondent No.2. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have been implicated in the FIR only because they happen to be the relatives of the husband. The matrimonial life was led by respondent No.2 in Gujarat. On account of distance itself, it cannot be imagined that the petitioners were in a position to harass respondent No.2. It appears that because petitioner No.2 is related to the husband and had introduced the two families for matrimonial purposes, therefore, so as to harass all the family members of the husband, the petitioners have been implicated. Continuance of proceedings, in such circumstances, would be abuse of process of law and process of Court. A person cannot be harassed only because of his relationship with an accused. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 9. FIR No.33 dated 5.10.2009 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station, Women Cell, Old Rohtak Road, Sonepat, qua petitioners is hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 26, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-29500 of 2010 [4] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?