Criminal Misc. No.M-18041 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-18041 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.11.2011. Ram Sarup and Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General,Punjab. Mr.Hoshiar Singh Advocate for Mr.Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Augustine George Masih,J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.128 dated 20.06.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioners and the charges framed vide order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising thereform. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the offences, under which the FIR, has been registered against the petitioners are not made out. He contends that the marriage between the complainant-respondent No.2-Karnailo with Kulwant Singh was solemnized in the year 1996. Petitioner No.1 is father-in- law, petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law of the complainant. After the marriage, Kulwant Singh and Karnailo started residing separately and there was nothing common in between the families except on an occasion or two they came together. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. The present FIR has been lodged after a period Criminal Misc. No.M-18041 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of more than 13 years from the date of marriage and during this period, there has been no complaint with regard to the demand of dowry by any of the family members from the complainant or her parents. The present FIR has been lodged with an intention to harass and humiliate the petitioners whereas, they have nothing to do with the allegations made therein. Offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against the petitioners as there are no details mentioned in regard to which of the articles were entrusted to the petitioners and when. Without there being any entrustment, there cannot be any misappropriation thereof. That apart, he contends that the demand was made for a new motor cycle which was to be used, if any, by her husband and the petitioners have nothing to do with the same. It appears to be a fight between the husband and wife which has resulted into the registration of FIR and with a malafide intention, all the family members have been roped in by the complainant. Counsel for the respondent could not dispute the fact that the marriage took place in the year 1996 and during the period before the registration of the present FIR, there is neither any complaint nor any allegation with regard to the demand of dowry. However, he contends that all the petitioners are stated to have given beating to the complainant and thrown her out of the house by stating that as long as she did not bring the new motor cycle, she would not be allowed to enter the house. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition by further contending that the charge has already been framed against the petitioners and therefore, this court may not interfere in the matter. The complainant has been impleaded as respondent No.2. Criminal Misc. No.M-18041 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Despite various opportunities granted, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. Her counsel has however submitted the same arguments as has been put forth by the counsel for the State. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the record would show that there are no details with regard to the entrustment of the dowry articles which are alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioners. As is apparent from the ration cards attached by the petitioners along with the petition Annexures P-3 and P-4, the petitioners were residing separately from the complainant and her husband Kulwant Singh. As both husband and wife were residing together but separate from the petitioners, the dowry articles and istri dhan cannot be said to be in possession or with the petitioners specially when there is no entrustment of those articles to the petitioners. It is not mentioned as of which articles were handed over to them and when. In the absence of such an assertion in the FIR, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out as there would not no misappropriation thereof. As regards the allegation of demand of dowry, there again the FIR is bereft of any details and the only incident which has been referred to is with regard to demand of a new motor cycle by the matrimonial family members. This allegation again is vague. However, in the light of the fact that petitioners No.1 and 2 were residing in one house and petitioners No.3 and 4 were residing in another house separate from the complainant Karnailo and Kulwant Singh, the said motor cycle could only be used by the husband of the complainant and the petitioners would have no interest therein. Criminal Misc. No.M-18041 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Vague and unguided allegations have been made in the FIR against the petitioners which cannot be made the basis for stating that the offences as alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are made out against them. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.128 dated 20.06.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura (Annexure P-1) and as also the charges framed vide order dated 30.03.2010 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed along with all the consequential proceedings qua the petitioners alone. (Augustine George Masih) 04th November, 2011. Judge Seema-II