Crl.Misc.No.M-18017 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No. M-18017 of 2009 Date of decision: 13.11.2009 Indra ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ... JORA SINGH, J. Indra filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.258 dated 15.11.2007 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. Promila lodged FIR No.258 dated 15.11.2007 on the allegation that she was married with Amit. Marriage was solemnized on 18.1.1998. Her parents had given sufficient dowry as per their status. An amount of Rs.4.75 lac was spent to solemnize the marriage. But her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Her in-laws were demanding motorcycle on the day of marriage. Her father had given Rs.21,000/- at the time of engagement to purchase scooter. Her husband and sister-in-law Seema used to beat her on smallest issues. In the year 1998, three days prior to Teej, she was caught hold by her sister-in-law and was dragged badly. Her husband and sister-in-law poured chilled water of freeze in her ear. Her parents assured the accused to supply a motorcycle, but the accused started demanding a car, AC etc. Crl.Misc.No.M-18017 of 2009 2 Notice of motion was issued. State filed reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that marriage of Promila with Amit was solemnized on 18.1.1998 at Bahadurgarh. FIR was got registered in the year 2007. Petitioner is resident of New Delhi. She has no concern with the marriage of Promila with Amit. Without verifying the facts and circumstances of the case properly, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Petitioner is the sister of mother of Amit. She is not residing in Bahadurgarh. Petitioner did not demand dowry, nor interfered in the married life of the complainant with Amit. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that FIR No.258 dated 15.11.2007 may be quashed. Learned counsel cited 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 616, Bhupinder Singh vs. Amandeep Kaur and another. Learned counsel for the State and respondent No.2 argued that after proper investigation, challan was presented. Case is pending for consideration of charge. Petitioner can raise all the pleas at the time of framing of the charge. No proof on the file that the petitioner is residing in New Delhi. FIR is dated 15.11.2007, whereas photocopy of identity card issued by the Election Commission of India shows that petitioner was 49 years’ old as on 1.1.2008, meaning thereby, identity card was issued in the month of January, 2008 or after that. No ration card or voter list produced to show that the petitioner is residing separately in New Delhi. Authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the petitioner because in the cited authority, petitioner was residing separately. Crl.Misc.No.M-18017 of 2009 3 Allegation of the petitioner is that marriage was solemnize on 18.1.1998 at Bahadurgarh and the petitioner is residing in House No.561/2, Chirag, New Delhi, but allegation of the petitioner seems to be not correct one because FIR was registered in the month of November, 2007, whereas photocopy of identity card issued by the Election Commission of India was issued in the month of January, 2008. Question is whether petitioner was residing in Bahadurgarh at the time of registration of FIR and earlier to that. After registration of FIR, very easy to get identity card by giving address of second house in New Delhi. In Bhupinder Singh’s case (supra), allegation of the petitioner was that he is the maternal uncle of the boy and is residing separately. Second allegation of the petitioner was that he had simply attended the marriage and if any article claimed to be istridhan was given to the petitioner, would have been handed over to the complainant or her family members. No chance of any article to be with the petitioner. In the present case, specific allegation against the petitioner is that she with the connivance of Seema directed Amit and his father that Promila has not brought car, despite birth to two boys. Why she is being kept in the house. Amit should divorce her and she (Indra) will get Amit married second time in a rich family in Delhi. In case, the petitioner is residing in New Delhi, then she could easily produce copies of ration card, voter list, electricity bills or receipts regarding payment of water charges to show that any one is occupying House No.561/2, Chirag, New Delhi. Evidence is to be led by the State whether petitioner is residing separately, whether petitioner used to maltreat and misbehave the complainant for want of dowry, whether petitioner Crl.Misc.No.M-18017 of 2009 4 instigated the in-laws of the complainant to divorce her to marry Amit second time in a rich family in Delhi. Something could be said if petitioner could have produced documentary proof to show that before registration of the FIR or at the time of registration of the FIR, she was residing separately in New Delhi. Challan has been presented in the Court. Petitioner can raise all the pleas before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. Merely on the ground that petitioner is the sister of the mother of Amit is not sufficient to quash the FIR because sometimes relations residing separately misbehave and maltreat the girl for want of dowry. In the light of above discussion, petition being without merit is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. 13.11.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE