Crl. Misc. No. M-17184 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-17184 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 10, 2009 Navgeet Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Nabgeet Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr. P. C.) for quashing of FIR No.387 dated 30.12.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Petitioner is younger brother of husband of complainant- Crl. Misc. No. M-17184 of 2008 2 respondent no.2. There is allegation in the FIR that some articles of istridhan were entrusted to the petitioner, who refused to return the same to the complainant and thereby committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof. There is also allegation that the petitioner and also the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant made demands of car and harassed the complainant continuously. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to allegations in the FIR, a sum of Rs.11,000/- each is alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner at the time of “Roka” ceremony and “Shagun” ceremony and some brass utensils, dinner set and lime set forming part of istridhan of the complainant were allegedly handed over to the petitioner at the time of marriage and therefore, no case under Section 406 IPC is made out. It is also contended that there are general allegations against the petitioner and husband and mother-in-law of the complainant regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. Reliance has been placed on various judgments namely Onkar Nath Mishra and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported as 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 335, Smt. Neera Singh vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others reported as 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 287, Anita and others vs. State of Punjab reported as 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 313, Raj Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana reported as 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 135 and Jasmin and another vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 228. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner qua entrustment of articles as well as qua cruelty committed by the petitioner towards the complainant. Some demands of the petitioner and his family members were met, but still they were not satisfied and continued to harass the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-17184 of 2008 3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are on the facts of those cases because it has to be seen on the facts and circumstances of each case whether case for quashing of FIR is made out or not. In the instant case, not only there are specific allegations regarding entrustment of istridhan articles to the petitioner, but also there are specific and detailed allegations regarding physical and mental cruelty committed towards the complainant by the petitioner and his brother and mother for non-fulfillment of their dowry demands. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for quashing of the FIR at the threshold. Investigation in the case has already been completed and challan has already been presented against the petitioner and other co-accused. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. August 10, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE