Criminal Misc. No.M-13946 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-13946 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.11.2009 Darbara Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner has applied for the quashment of FIR No.189 dated 4.12.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Bhiwanigarh qua him on allegations which may be indicated as under:- Respondent no.2 Jaswinder Kaur alias Simranjit Kaur has a matrimonial feud with members of her in-laws family including her husband. The petitioner is nowhere related to the husband of the respondent no.2 and cannot be said to be related to the in-laws family of respondent no.2 in any way. In the course of the FIR, respondent no.1 had levelled dowry demand related allegations and the further plea was that her in-laws had misappropriated her Istridhan and had also subjected her to dowry-related harassment. Criminal Misc. No.M-13946 of 2009 -2- **** Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as the petitioner is not at all related to the in-laws family of respondent no.2, the provisions of Section 498-A are not attracted at all. In support of the averment, reliance is placed upon the contents of the FIR wherein petitioner Darbara Singh is not averred to be relations of in-laws family of respondent no.2. It is apparent from a perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) that there are precise averments in the course thereof that a presentation had been made at the time of marriage by mother-in-law of respondent no.2 that “Darbara Singh just like her father-in-law and after the death of her husband Darbara Singh help the family of the accused and milani ceremony was performed with Darbara Singh and the ring was gifted to him but soon after the marriage applicant also come to know that Darbara Singh i.e. accused no.4 is not relative of Paramjit Kaur i.e. accused No.2.” Though there are certain photographs on record which show the petitioner Darbara Singh standing over there alongwith the mother-in- law of respondent no.2, at the same time it would not established that the petitioner herein is a member of in-laws family of respondent no.2 for the purpose of provisions of Section 498-A IPC. That provision is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- “498-A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- Criminal Misc. No.M-13946 of 2009 -3- **** (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.” It would be apparent from a perusal of the above quoted provision of Section 498-A IPC that it would apply only to “husband or relative of husband of a woman”. Even in the course of the FIR, one of the allegation is that a ring was gifted to Darbara Singh. In that context, it would also require pertinent notice that it is recorded in the FIR itself that “Darbara Singh just like her father-in-law and after the death of her husband Darbara Singh help the family of the accused and milani ceremony was performed with Darbara Singh and the ring was gifted to him but soon after the marriage applicant also come to know that Darbara Singh i.e. accused no.4 is not relative of Paramjit Kaur i.e. accused No.2.” The other allegation against the petitioner, in the course of the FIR, is that stranger used to come to the matrimonial house of respondent no. 2 to meet the petitioner and they would stay over for 3-4 nights every week and further that petitioner and two other accused used to compel respondent no.2 have sexual connection with those unknown persons. Yet another averment in the course of FIR, is that in one particular case, petitioner Darbara Singh caught hold of the arm of respondent and tried to outrage her modesty in Criminal Misc. No.M-13946 of 2009 -4- **** the presence of her husband. When respondent no.2 pushed the petitioner aside she was told by her husband and mother-in-law that Darbara Singh could do anything whatever he could do with his sister-in- law. There can be no escape from conclusion that petitioner cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be said to be a relative of respondent no.2. The other allegations, obviously, do not appear to have any connection with the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed qua the petitioner. November 12, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE