Criminal Misc. No. M-14477 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-14477 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.3.2009 R.C. Agnihotri and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. A.S. Sular, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash case FIR No. 212 dated 22.4.2008 registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC. The complaint, in the present case, has been lodged by Nidhi Sharma daughter of Dr. Vinod Sharma. It was stated in the complaint that she had obtained Ph.D. from the Panjab University. Her marriage was solemnized on 20.4.2007 with Vibhav Agnihotri son of Ramesh Criminal Misc. No. M-14477 of 2008 2 Chander Agnihotri according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies. At the time of ring ceremony and marriage, a considerable expense was incurred by her parents. From the very first day of marriage, she was harassed, and maltreated by the family members of her husband Vibhav Agnihotri on account of not bringing dowry to their expectations. Mother-in-law Vasudha Agnihotri, father-in-law Ramesh Chander Agnihotri, brother-in- law (younger brother of the husband) Anubhav Agnihotri, and Bhavna Misra, sister of the husband of the complainant were named as accused. Rs.5,00,000/- were demanded by the accused from the complainant, otherwise she was threatened to leave the house. Various stances of cruelty, maltreatment, and harassment has been mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner No.1 Ramesh Chander Agnihotri is father-in-law, petitioner No.2 Vasudha Agnihotri is mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 Anubhav Agnihotri is younger brother of the husband, petitioner No.4 is sister of the husband and petitioner No.5 is husband himself. In this petition, the petitioners have controverted the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR. It has been stated that the marriage was performed in a simple manner. Parents of the complainant only gave one suit-case. No demand of dowry was ever made rather a locker in joint name was opened by the complainant and her husband. It has been further stated that FIR contained version which has been coined after consultations and deliberations. Petitioner No.5, husband of the complainant is stated to be away from India as he is settled in Australia. Counsel for the State Mr. S.S. Mor, learned Senior Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that petitioner No.4 Bhavna Misra has Criminal Misc. No. M-14477 of 2008 3 been found innocent during investigation. Mr.A.S. Sullar, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that complainant is victim at the hands of the accused and FIR disclose prima-facie commission of offence on the part of the accused/petitioners. Disputed questions of fact are involved in the present petition. Truth and veracity of the allegations made in the FIR cannot be determined by this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Parties to the litigation can adduce evidence before the trial Court in support of respective contentions raised before this Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.2 Vasudha Agnihotri is mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 Bhavna Misra is younger sister of the husband of the complainant. Petitioner No.4 Bhavna Misra is stated to have been found innocent during investigation. Counsel has prayed that taking these facts into consideration, personal appearance of petitioners No.2 to 4 be exempted before the trial Court. I find merit in this contention of counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, personal appearance of respondents No.2 to 4 before the trial Court is exempted subject to filing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners. On the furnishing of Criminal Misc. No. M-14477 of 2008 4 undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioners shall stand exempted. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 9, 2009 “DK”