Rachana And ANR. v. State Of Haryana And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.03.2024 RACHANA AND ANOTHER ......PETITIONERS Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN J. (ORAL) 1.
!"#$
$ % &'()* + ,- .
/01 23! #3&##4#& % 5
)#)!42!'"6
342 0
% $ &"24* + 0%$,-
&!4'#4#)*
7 %6)-
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the marriage of the complainant (respondent No. 2) was solemnized with Avinash, son of the petitioners on 06.12.2020. There was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife and the present FIR has been registered which is misuse of process of law. Petitioner No. 1 is the motherin-law and petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of respondent No. 2complainant. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners in the FIR despite that final report under Section 173 of the Code has been filed and
-2the trial Court has even framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 of IPC by passing the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-3). On the basis of general and vague allegations, the trial is not going to succeed. As such, the criminal proceedings arising out of the present FIR are misuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. 3.
Learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid contentions by referring to the copy of the FIR and the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code (Annexure P-2). It is contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of 7,00,000/- from the complainant. There are also specific allegations of harassment to the complainant, as such, the final report was presented after thorough investigation.
4.
I have considered the aforesaid submissions.
5.
The FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2. The solemnization of the marriage of respondent No. 2 with the son of the petitioners on 06.12.2020 is not disputed. It is contended in the FIR that the father of the complainant had spent a sum of 12,00,000/- on the 'Sagai' ceremony which took place on 02.11.2020 at R Plaza Saharanpur. The parents of respondent No. 2 had given dowry articles to the accused persons, as such, spent a sum of 25,00,000/- in the marriage and in the 'Sagai' ceremony. It is further in allegations that the accused were not happy with the dowry articles brought by respondent No. 2, as such, 2-3 days of the marriage, the mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and other accused made a demand of 7,00,000/- and asked respondent No. 2 to bring the said amount. It is also specifically alleged by respondent No. 2 that her mother-in-
-3law (petitioner No. 1) used to administer some medicines to the complainant in her food and tea due to which she used to lie depressed in her room. It is further alleged by respondent No. 2 that she remained mum for a long time due to the fear that she would be turned out of her matrimonial house. 6.
As per the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code, a detailed investigation has been conducted and the allegations constitute an offence under Section 376 of IPC against the relatives of the husband of respondent No. 2 were not found correct. However, the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment to respondent No. 2 were prima facie found against the petitioners.
7.
On the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the trial Court has found that a prima facie case under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioners and charge-sheet has also been issued to them.
8.
, 7$
8$ : ;
< &''#01 $24!
7 7
##2 $ 0
.
=6 >*&-?
/0
1 8 8
@ *#-?
/0
1
/01
-4-
A
:
8
&32*&- 7
8 &33*#- @ *)-?
8 /01
8
@ *!-?
/01
A
6
A
8
&33*#- @ *3-?
/01
8 :
@ *2-?
7
8 $ *
-
B 8 $ 8
8
8 @ C*(-?
B
8
8
8 8
D ' , 7$ E81 $
#4&#*'- $$!24 .
/01
8 0
=6 &' >8
:
8 )'(
:
-5- $ 7 : 8
: 8 8 :
$ 7
: .
7 :
)'(
!"# =6 &>
$
7 8
.
##" $ 7 8
# $
8
0
8
$ )
$
7 8
8
.
!?
7 8 :
8
8
$
-6-
7
3?
7 8 8
8 2 $
8
(
. B "?
7
8
+ 8
, +
,
: .
F8 8 ' 8
8 8
7 8
8 @
: &40
6
. 8 8
. 8 &&?
8 8
8
-7-
� 7 :
##"
B
!"# $
7 8
. $
7 &)G
7
?
8 $ .
$ 7 8
&!?
6
&()*#-
$ : &3$ 8 $
: 8 .
7 7 :
:
7D #4
8
8 * - 7 7
:
$ ?
.
8
8
-8- .
D &4 , 7 $ H 8 #4#)*(- $$(&& && E
8 6 6
6 6
6 6 7
8
.
8 , 7$ $ 9 :
;,* - &# 8
/0
1 , 7$ $ : ;, * - $
8 .
/017
:
$ &) $ .
-914.
Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
March 05, 2024 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether reportable No