1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 17471-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.8.2009 *** Sudesh Kumari & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 164 dated 8.12.2004, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of the complainant Rajni while petitioner No.2 is her husband. The marriage of respondent No.2 with Satish Kumar, brother of petitioner No.1 took place on 24.11.1999 according to Hindu Rites and out of this wedlock a female child was born. It appears that the married couple could not make adjustments with each other and as a result the complainant got registered the impugned FIR against her husband, parents in law and the petitioners with the allegations that despite having given sufficient dowry in the marriage, her in-laws were not satisfied with it and they used to harass and maltreat her for bringing more dowry in the shape of car and further they pressurized her to bring Rs.2 lacs for expansion of the business of Satish Kumar, the husband. The complainant also alleged that whenever petitioners visited her matrimonial house, then her husband and parents in law, on their instigation, harassed and humiliated her for bringing the cash. It was also her case that since the demand was not fulfilled, she was turned 2 out of her matrimonial house along with her daughter and the accused also misappropriated her istridhan. On these broad allegations, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners and others. This Court in order dated 15.7.2009 observed that none has put up appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 whereas, in fact a coordinating Bench of this Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioners opted to issue notice only to the Advocate General, Haryana. In the detailed reply filed on behalf of the State the action of registration of FIR against the petitioners has been justified as during investigation their involvement in the commission of offence was found and thus, dismissal of the petition has been sought. It has been contended by learned counsel that petitioner No. 1 is sister of husband, who is married to petitioner No.2 in the year 1992 i.e. much prior to the marriage of the complainant and are living separately at Ambala. They have nothing to do with the married life of couple, who are living at village Mamli, a far off place as well as with the alleged demand of dowry and harassment but they only being the close relations of the husband have been roped into this false case. The arguments have been scanned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. Further, in the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 313, when a first information report was lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire family members of the husband, this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR against the unmarried sisters and brothers, by observing that “it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband and the wife become strained.” Similarly, in the case of Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 332, a criminal complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the husband, his parents and 5 3 sisters and the proceedings qua sisters were quashed with the observation that the allegations against the sisters are vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. Similarly in the instant case, the allegations, so far as petition- ers are concerned, are omnibus and are very general in nature and appears to be an outcome of frustration of the complainant, who since has failed to maintain her matrimonial ties, due to whatever reason and whosoever fault and had attempted to widen the net by implicating most of the family of in- laws. It is a general tendency to involve each and every member of the in- laws family in the cases of matrimonial dispute. It has come on record that there is no dispute that petitioners are living separately from the married couple and thus, it cannot be expected that they have any interference in the married life of the complainant or that they are beneficial from the said de- mand of car or cash, as alleged, in any manner. Further, the impugned FIR nowhere speaks of any specific entrustment of dowry articles to the petition- ers, but a very general allegation has been leveled that the accused persons were handed over the dowry articles at the time of marriage. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were ever instrumental in the alleged commission of offence. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in clear words that where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulte- rior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. The vague allegations in the FIR against petitioners warrant the inter- ference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against them with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and consequent proceedings thereto, to the extent of petitioners are quashed. However, the trial qua remaining accused shall continue, as per law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 27, 2009 Jiten