Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Kulwinder Kaur and another Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another Respondent Present: Mr. J.S.Gill, Advocate Mr. KS Pannu, DAG, Punjab Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. This order will dispose of two connected petitions filed by Kulwinder Kaur and another (Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008) and Manjit Kaur (Cr.Misc. M 4099 of 2009) for quashing of FIR No. 132 dated 8.12.2007 u/s 406/498-AIPC, registered at the instance of complainant Manpreet Kaur alleging that she had been maltreated by her husband and his family members. Petitioner Manjit Kaur (Cr.Misc. M 4099 of 2009) is stated to be sister of complainant's husband. She claims that she got married on 5.4.2006 about one year and eight months before the lodging of the FIR. The husband of the petitioner is stated to be settled abroad, whereas she has been staying with her in-laws with one year old son. So far as Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 2 petitioners Kulwinder Kaur and Kuljit Singh (Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008) are concerned, they are sister and brother-in-law of complainant's husband. They were married on 16.11.1997, about ten years prior to the filing of the FIR. The grievance of the petitioners is that a perusal of the allegations in the FIR would reveal that there are no allegations of any maltreatment or misappropriation against Kulwinder Kaur and Kuljit Singh and the allegations against Manjit Kaur are improbable and vague. In order to appreciate whether the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners are an abuse of the court, it would be relevant to refer to the allegations in the FIR. As per the FIR, lodged on the basis of complaint of Manpreet Kaur- respondent No.2, the complainant was married to Kamaljit Singh. She being an NRI had been working in Canada as an Assistant Controller in International Hotel of Calgary . Her marriage was solemnized with Kamaljit Singh at Jalandhar Cantt. on 2.4.2004 with great pomp and show by spending about Rs.9/10 lacs. As per the demand of her husband and his family members, gold items were given to them and their relatives. A gold set was given to complainant's mother-in- law, tops to sisters-in-law and two gold rings and a gold chain etc. were given to her husband. Twelve gold rings were given to the close relations of Kamaljit Singh. Cash for buying a Zen car was given at the insistence of the family members of her in-laws as her husband had to migrate to Canada. After marriage, the complainant along with her husband stayed at Jalandhar and at Village Akalgarh for a few days. Her husband told her that it would have been better if diamond items were given instead of gold items. Complainant's husband was eager to go to Canada. The Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 3 complainant visited India for the marriage of her brother on 14.2.2006 when she stayed with her husband at the matrimonial home at Jalandhar and for more than 20 days at Village Akalgarh. The husband of the complainant assaulted her in front of her family members. On 2.2.2006 when the complainant had to make purchases of gold jewellery for her brother, her husband demanded diamond items. The complainant was caused mental cruelty by her husband. The complainant along with her husband had gone back to Canada on 26.2.2006. After reaching Canada, her husband started taunted her that she was not beautiful and was not up to her standard. She was slapped a number of times at Canada. The marriage of sister-in-law of the complainant Manjit Kaur was performed in April 2006 and her husband pressurized her to arrange for the air ticket to visit India. Sister-in-law and mother-in-law kept demanding money from the complainant on telephone. A sum of Rs.3.00 lacs was sent to her mother- in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law as they pressurized the complainant. Another sum of Rs.1.00 lac was sent on the demand of father-in-law of the complainant. The complainant alleged that when she visited India for her brother's marriage, she handed over 6 tolas of gold to her sister-in-law as per her demand and she kept asking her to bring more gold as her marriage was approaching. After the marriage of complainant's sister-in-law Manjit Kaur, her brother Jagmel Singh was summoned by in- laws of the complainant at their residence and the brother of the complainant was told that a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs was needed. Brother of the complainant Jagmel Singh arranged money and paid Rs.2.5 lacs to her husband and father-in-law at Raikot. So far as Kulwinder Kaur and Kuljit Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 4 Singh are concerned, the allegations as per the FIR is that on 24.9.2007 husband of the complainant had left the house for unknown destination and after fleecing the family of the complainant for a huge money and having been able to migrate to Canada, her mother-in-law and father-in-law pressurized the complainant through her husband to divorce her husband and marry Kuljit Singh to help her sister-in-law to migrate to Canada. When the complainant objected to this, her husband left her company, for which the police authority at Canada was informed. A minute scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR reflects that there are specific allegations against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The allegations against the sisters of the husband of the complainant are absolutely vague and uncertain. No article has been specified, which was entrusted to Manjit Kaur or Kulvinder Kaur. It is not even alleged that any specific article, having been entrusted to the petitioners was demanded back or that any of the petitioners had refused to return any articles. So far as the vague allegations regarding handing over of money are concerned, there is neither any allegation that the money was actually handed over to any of the petitioners nor there is any document said to have been prepared indicating that money had been handed over to any of the petitioners. The allegations against Kuljit Singh, husband of Kulwinder Kaur are not existing in the FIR. There are vague allegations against the in-laws of the complainant that they had asked the complainant to marry Kuljit Singh and facilitate his migration to Canada. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate has contended that the FIR has been registered after a detailed Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 5 inquiry was conducted by the police. Reliance has been placed on inquiry report Annexure R-3. During inquiry it had been found that all the family members of the husband of the complainant had treated the complainant with cruelty and were pressurizing her that after giving a divorce to Kamaljit Singh, she should take Kuljit Singh to Canada. On account of refusal of the Manpreet Kaur to do so, all the family membes started harassing her. It has been pointed out that the complainant's husband had started showing his status as single as per the tax return summary (Annexure R-5). Few documents have been placed on record indicating litigation between the complainant and her husband to show that her husband has been directed to surrender his passport to the Clerk of the Court in Calgary and that he has been involved in the smuggling of narcotics. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that counsel for respondent No.2 has been able to substantiate the allegations of demand of dowry and acts of cruelty against the husband of the complainant but so far as the petitioners are concerned, they being married sisters and brother-in-law of the husband of the complainant seem to have been roped in along with the other family members, without there being any specific attribution against them. The FIR and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, even if presumed to be correct, do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. It is apparent that the present case falls within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors AIR 1992 SC 604. It is certainly a case where the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie make out any offence against the petitioners. The allegations, if any, against Manjit Kaur Cr.Misc. M 30138 of 2008 6 are vague and uncertain. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed, the FIR and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The criminal proceedings, pending against the other accused, however, will not be affected by this order and can continue against them, in accordance with law. November 30 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE