In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-6305 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.3.2009 Geeta Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.KDS Hooda , Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Geeta Devi under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 359 dated 5.12.2008, under Sections 406/498- A/323/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Poonam got married to Rajender on 25.11.2005. Thereafter, Rajender, Geeta Devi-mother-in-law and other members of her in-laws family started giving beatings to her and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. Father of the complainant gave Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and, thereafter, gave Rs.35,000/- to Rajender to keep the complainant properly in her matrimonial home. On 15.11.2008, Rajender, Criminal Misc. No.M-6305 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner Geeta Devi and Babli (sister-in-law) asked the complainant to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of the house. When the complainant refused to do so then she was given beatings on 28.11.2008 by the petitioner and other accused. She was caught hold by the petitioner and her sister-in-law (Devrani) and her husband gave kick blows to her in her abdomen and her one tooth got broken. Her sister-in-law (Nanad) gave kick blows on her back. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being mother-in-law of the complainant had been falsely involved in this case due to her relationship. The petitioner was innocent and had allegedly only caught hold of the complainant. The petitioner is allegedly residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She along with her co-accused raised demand of dowry and inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner might be necessary. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 05, 2009 anita