Criminal Misc. No. 77271-M of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. 77271-M of 2006 (O&M). Date of decision : 19.8.2008 Archana Sharma @ Bali and others ..... Petitioners vs Nidhi alias Sarika ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint dated 19.11.2005 filed under Sections 406, 498-A IPC tilted as 'Nidhi vs Rajiv Sharma and others', pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar and all subsequent proceedings thereto. The petitioners in the present case are Chachi of the husband of the respondent/complainant, and unmarried daughter and son of petitioner no.1. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage of the respondent was solemnised with Rajiv Sharma on 4.12.2004 as per Hindu Rites at Amritsar. It is alleged that due to differences, the respondent left the matrimonial home and filed a criminal complaint on 25.7.2005 under Sections 405, 406, 498-A, 420 IPC against the petitioners and other family members. After filing of the complaint, two witnesses were examined and as on the adjourned date i.e. 12.8.2005, no one appeared for the complainant, the same was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of the complaint was filed in which learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that he wanted to withdraw the complaint and accordingly the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17.11.2005 permitted the first complaint filed by the complainant to be withdrawn. Immediately thereafter on 19.11.2005 with same allegations the impugned complaint came to be filed against the petitioners and other Criminal Misc. No. 77271-M of 2006 2 accused in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 2.8.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in the present case are Chachi and her unmarried daughter and son. They were not at all concerned with day to day affairs of the complainant and her husband. There are general allegations against the petitioners with regard to demand of motorcycle and cash. The petitioners in any case were not going to be benefited with the motorcycle as the same, in case the alleged demand was to be fulfilled, was to the benefit of husband of the complainant. The petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed as in the matrimonial cases the effort is to spread the net as wide as possible. Praying for the quashing of complaint qua the petitioners, reliance has been placed to Usha Rani vs State of Haryana 1995 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 690, Santosh Bhardwaj vs U.T. Administration 2000 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 247, Ramandeep Kaur vs State of Punjab 2001 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal) 394, and Smt. Nirmala vs State of Haryana 2002 (3) R. C. R. (Criminal) 246. In response to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners and the complainant are residing in the same house. They had been interfering in the day to day affairs of the matrimonial life of the complainant. There are specific allegations against the petitioners. In fact, as far as harassment of the complainant is concerned, the entire family as a unit was one and it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. To consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to consider the law on the subject first so that on the basis thereof the facts of the present case could be appreciated. In Santosh Bhardwaj's and Ramandeep Kaur 's cases (supra), this court considered the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR in a matrimonial case. The petitioner therein were husband, parents-in-law and other relatives. This court finding that the allegations against the relatives being quite vague and general in nature and had been unnecessarily implicated in the case; quashed the FIR qua them and the case was directed to be proceeded only against the husband and parents-in-law. To similar effect is the judgments in Usha Rani's and Smt. Nirmala's cases (supra). In Criminal Misc. No. 77271-M of 2006 3 Ravinder Kumar vs State of Haryana 2002 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 505, this court opined that an unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant (sister of the husband) will not have any interest in bringing of more dowry as she will not be benefited with the same. Any dowry in case the same is brought was meant to be used by the complainant, her husband and at the most parents- in-law (if living with them). Similar view is expressed in Smt. Nirmala's case (supra). If the case in hand is considered in view of the judgments referred to above, a perusal of the complaint shows that the allegations are vague and general in nature against the accused. It is mentioned that at the time of marriage, the dowry articles were entrusted to all the accused. The effort in the complaint is to spread the net wide by levelling vague allegations against all the accused but without any specific date, etc. The allegation regarding demand of gas cylinder has been made with no details and so is the case of demand of cash of Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle. If the gas cylinder as alleged in the complaint had been given, the same was certainly for the benfit of the complainant herself. Similar is the position with regard to vague allegation of demand of cash and the motorcycle. Had the motorcycle been given, the same was for the benefit of husband of the complainant and not for the petitioners who are the Chachi of the husband of the complainant and her unmarried daughter and son. For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would certainly amount to misuse of process of law and they are being unnecessary harassed. Accordingly, the impugned complaint and all subsequent proceedings thereto qua the petitioners are quashed. The petition stands disposed of. 19.8.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge