Criminal Misc. No. M-32096 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32096 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.7.2011. Smt. Niraj Kumari & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition by Neeraj Kumari sister-in-law (husband's sister) and Harbhajan Lal brother-in-law (husband's sister's husband) of Neeru Devi-complainant seek quashing of First Information Report No. 30 dated February 12th, 2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal code, Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-5). 2. Neeru Devi-complainant was married with Balraj Singh on November 5th, 2007. He was working at Kuwait. It was alleged by the complainant that her husband, parents-in-law, sister- in-law and husband of sister-in-law used to harass her for bringing inadequate dowry. They also demanded more dowry. On a number of occasions, she was given beating. The matter was amicably settled. Inspite of that, accused did not mend their ways and kept on harassing her to bring dowry from her parents. Finally, she was turned out from her matrimonial home on August 5th, 2009. Since then, she was residing at her parental home. 3. In the complaint, she named nine persons but during investigation, five were found innocent including Niraj Kumari- petitioner. Notwithstanding that, report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the petitioners, Balraj Singh-husband, Chandi Lal-father and Narma Devi-mother-in-law. Criminal Misc. No. M-32096 of 2010 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no specific allegations whatsoever were levelled by the complainant against the petitioners. The marriage between the petitioners took place on November 23rd, 1993, that is, about 14 years prior to the marriage of the complainant. Both of them are residing at Karnal whereas Balraj Singh and his parents are residing at Kurukshetra. Not only that, Harbhajan Lal-petitioner is serving in Navy and mostly remains on ships abroad and that is why, it has been specifically stated by the complainant in the complaint that Harbhajan Lal be not allowed to go abroad and his passport be confiscated. It has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint as to at what point of time, the petitioners had harassed and beaten the complainant. She only stated that all the accused named in the FIR had given her beatings. She even blamed the mediators of the marriage, though, they were not challaned by the Police. 5. In Kans Ram vs. state of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), the Hon'bl'e Supreme Court 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. 6. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, AIR 2010 SC 3363, the FIR was quashed under Section 498-A IPC against the sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant on the short ground that their implication in the complaint was meant to harass and humiliate husband's relatives. It is normally seen that question of demand of dowry relates to the husband and wife. Sister and brother-in-law, who were married 17 years ago had nothing to do with dowry. They are not going to get anything if at all dowry is given by the wife to her husband or her in laws. 7. From the contents of the FIR, it is evident that petitioners have been named by the complainant only to harass them. They were married 14 years prior to the marriage of the complainant. They are not residing in the city where the complainant was residing. Harbhajan Lal-petitioner used to remain abroad most of Criminal Misc. No. M-32096 of 2010 3 the time as he was working in Navy. The complainant's words cannot be accepted as final against the distant relatives of the husband as they are least concerned with the matrimonial life of the couple. In view of this, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 8. Hence, the present petition is allowed. First Information Report No. 30 dated February 12th, 2010 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-5) and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua Niraj Kumari and Harbhajan Lal-petitioners. 9. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 22.7.2011. SN