CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.2.2009 Smt. Phool Mirza and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. The present petition has been preferred by mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant for quashing of an FIR, registered against them under Sections 498-A, 406 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad. The allegations in the FIR are that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Feroze alias Mohd. Farooq. Though sufficient amount was spent on the marriage and number of gifts were given by parents of the complainant, the family of Feroze remained dissatisfied. The complainant was subjected to harassment for bringing insufficient dowry. She was subjected to various atrocities and when she could not meet the demand of Rs.2.00 lacs, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners have been residing separately from the couple and have been CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 2 falsely implicated in the case. According to the counsel, the marriage was solemnized way back on 28th November, 1990 and thus the present FIR is only abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as the allegations contained therein are absurd and inherently improbable. Moreover, the proceedings have been instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the apex court reported in Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 463 and Baijnath Jha vs. Sita Ram and another, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 428 in support of his arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the present FIR was lodged. The complainant has levelled number of allegations in the FIR regarding demands of dowry made from her from time to time by her husband and the petitioners. She has also alleged that she was mercilessly beaten up when she was unable to meet the demand of a car and Rs.2.00 lacs. On 15th September, 2006, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her jewellery and other articles were retained by the accused. Under the circumstances, I do not think that it is a fit case for quashing of the FIR at this stage. As regards the argument of the CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 3 counsel that the petitioners are residing separately, the same can be examined by the Investigating Officer as the petition has been filed at the stage when investigation of the case is still pending. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel in Priya Vrat's case and Baijnath's case (supra). However, it is not possible for this court at this stage to arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings have been instituted by the complainant out of malice and ulterior motive nor is it possible at this stage to say that the allegations levelled in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case of quashing of the FIR in inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 26, 2009 'rajpal'