IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-51672 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 20, 2009 Smt. Seema Rani and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. A.N. Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioners – Mst. Seema Rani and Mst. Murti Rani are the sister-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2 – Mst. Manju Bala, who had lodged FIR No. 186 dated 27.06.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Sohna against them. The petitioners have applied for the quashment of the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-51672 of 2007 In the First Information Report, lodged by respondent No.2 with the police of Sohna, there was an allegation that her husband was not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by her and that, even on the first visit to the house of in-laws, the petitioners taunted the complainant for having brought along insufficient dowry and they also announced to her that there were, in fact, proposals where the proposing party was prepared to give a car in dowry. When respondent No.2 brought the above conduct of the petitioners to the notice of her husband, he also required her to bring along a sum of Rs.5 lacs from her father. The further allegation is that after the birth of a child to her on 29.01.2002, the petitioners (along with the husband of the estranged lady) again demanded Rs. 5 lacs and a car in dowry. Respondent No.2 – first informant was also turned out of the matrimonial house after being belaboured and her restoration to the matrimonial house came about only with the intervention of her father who told the petitioners that he could not pay up on account of his financial incapacity. Her father did part with a sum of Rs. one lac in favour of the husband of the first informant and also escorted her to her matrimonial house. Her husband has illicit relations with another lady. Petitioner No.1 – Mst. Seema Rani, a divorcee has illicit relations with a named individual at whose instigation all the jewellery articles were snatched by them 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-51672 of 2007 from the first informant. On a particular night, the respondent – complainant over heard a conversation (to which the petitioners were a party) about her elimination by being set afire. She brought facts to the notice of her father who brought along a panchayat before which as well the dowry demands were reiterated. Respondent No.2 had initially filed a report (Annexure P/2) with the crime against women cell at Delhi. It would be evident from a perusal thereof that the respondent – complainant did not make the above dowry-related allegations in it. In fact, all that she averred in the course thereof was that she had been belaboured by the petitioners (and her husband) because they (petitioners) are women of easy virtue and also because they “are non-vegetarians and consume liquor”. She also made an allegation in the course thereof that they wanted her father to provide a sum of Rs. 5 lacs by the sale of his property. The matter was patched up thereafter and her father helped her open a beauty parlour. That was, thus, the first presentation made to the police and the presentation aforementioned is conspicuously silent about essential dowry- related allegations which find mention in the FIR. Those allegations are also not mentioned in the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure P/3) which the first informant had filed against her husband and also a 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-51672 of 2007 petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P/4) which she filed in a Court at Gurgaon. In the light thereof, allowing the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petition shall stand allowed. FIR No. 186 dated 27.06.2007, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Sohna, shall stand quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioners. It is further made clear that the observations, made in the course of this order, are confine only to the petitioners and shall not affect the ultimate decision of the prosecution against the other accused. The learned Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of the allegations against the other accused, completely unfazed by the observations made in this order by the Court. October 20, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4