ROHTAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS . Suraj Mukhi wife of Rohtas, petitioner No. 1 in this petition, had lodged a first information report with the police on 30.6.1991. Broadly, the allegations in the first information report are as under : Her marriage had been solemnised with Rohtas about five years back. At the time of her marriage, her brothers gave her gold Nath (nose ring) weighing 1.25 Toles, one gold Dhol weighing 1 Tola, one gold locket weighing 6. Mashas, one pair of gold rings weighing 1.5 Tola, 2 silver pendents and one pair of Pazeb weighing 200 grams. The articles of dowry also consisted of one box, two Pettis, 51 utensils, one sewing machine, one table fan, one table, two chairs. one bed, one iron and ten blankets. Rohtas was given one gold ring weighing 1 Tola and one radio at the time of her marriage. Her in -law had give her one gold necklace, one watch, one gold Teeka, two gold rings and pair of silver Pazeb. After her marriage,she took these articles to her in -laws and stayed there for seven days. During that period her mother -in -law, husband, sister -in -law Murti Devi and her husband Prakash, who is a resident of Jind, took away her ornaments on the pretext that they wanted to get the design changed and then they will return those ornaments to her. Thereafter she went away to her parents' house. When her brothers asked about the jewellery, she told him that her mother -in -law, husband, sister -in -law and her husband have kept the jewelry to get the design changed. She frequented her in -laws' house for one year and was blessed with a son. Her brother gave her some articles by way of gift but her mother -in -law and husband besides his brother -in -law (Nandoi) Hari Parkash taunted her that her brother should have given T.V. in Chhuchhak. Thereafter her mother -in -law her husband, her sisters -in -law Murti, Darshna and Usha and brother -in -law (Nandoi) Hari Parkash started torturing her. They wanted her to sell 17 kanals of land. which fell to her share from her parental side and hand over the sale proceeds to them but she refused to oblige them. They kept her hungry and made her to work. On 19.6.1990, her mother -in -law, her husband, her sisters -in -law Darshna and Ushagave her beating and on 20.6.1990, she reached her elder sister Birmati's house in village Kanoh and narrated these facts to her. Finaly she alleged that her mother -in -law Bharpai, her husband Rohtas and sister's -in -law Darshna and Usha gave her severe beatings for bringing inadequate dowry and turned her out of the house.

(2.) THIS resulted in the filing of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by her husband Rohtas, her mother -in -law Bharpai and her sisters -in -law. Darshan and Usha for quashing the first information report and all other proceedings flowing therefrom . The petitioners' case is that Rohtas, petitioner, and the complainant had been living comfortably since their marriage in 1985 but he found her to be a woman of hot temperament. She could not adjust with him though a son was born from his loins. She is in the habit of leaving the house without telling him. she left the house on 20.6.1990 and when he came to know about it, he enquired from her parental house but she was not present there. On the contrary she went to her sister Birmati in village Kansh and from there she went to her mother in village Depal, where a panchayat was convened for settling the dispute but to no avail. The petitioners have alleged that the complainant had got a false first information report registered under Sections 498 -A, 406 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to them, the allegations levelled in the first information report are vague. She has roped in the whole family of her in -laws. Darshna, petitioner No. 3, has since been married and petitioner No. 4 Usha is a minor. They have added that the complainant has not furnished any particulars of the alleged cruelty allegedly practised by the petitioners against the complainant. In the absence of such material, no offence can be made out against them. They have added that the first information report had been lodged against them merely to harass and humiliate them. There is no allegation that any article of dowry was entrusted by the complainant to any of the petitioners. In the absence of such particulars, no offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the fist information report.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the state, the allegations of the petitioners have been controverted. It has been added that the trial of the petitioners has commenced and the code is now fixed for prosecution evidence after sufficient material was found during the course of investigation against them. The respondent has further stated that the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution during the investigation, have revealed that the ornaments were not returned to the complainant. They have added that the investigation has further revealed that on 19.6.1990, petitioners No. 1 to 4 gave fist, slap and Danda blows to the complainant. The respondent has, therefore, asked for the dismissal of the petition.