Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Petitioners Gurjant Singh and Balwant Kaur (who are father -in -law and mother -in -law of complainant Kamalpreet Kaur) for quashing of FIR No. 57 dated 17.4.2008 under Sections 498 -A, 406, 313, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa and all subsequent proceedings arising there from. Notice of motion was issued on 30th May, 2009.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners have been implicated falsely in the case on the basis of vague and false allegations. A complaint was also made by the complainant before the "Women Cell, Sirsa" which was enquired and report in this regard was submitted. As per report, the allegations were found to be false. The allegation with regad to demand of Rs. 2 lacs was also found to be baseless. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that complainant Kamalpreet Kaur remained with her in -laws only for a short period as she was residing separately. The allegations in the FIR are that husband of complainant was having illicit relation with his maternal aunt and the same were also found to be false in the inquiry. It was also found in the inquiry that the dispute was between complainant and her husband and a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right was also filed by the complainant on 25th September, 2007 and the present FIR was registered on 17th April, 2008. An application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed at Talwandi Sabo against the Petitioners and others and a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed in the Court at Dabwali for maintenance. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that a threat was given by the complainant to the Petitioners as well as other family members to falsely implicate them in the case and keeping in view this attitude of the complainant, her husband in order to save himself, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the complainant at Bathinda. During the pendency of the investigation of the said FIR, certain dowry articles were recovered from the family members of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that since marriage was solemnized on 3rd March, 2006 and immediately thereafter both complainant as well as her husband started living separately which is clear from the fact that whey were having separate ration -card and harassment due to demand of dowry does not arise as they were residing at Bathinda whereas the Petitioners were residing at Talwandi Sabo.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State as well as complainant submit that allegations against the present Petitioners are specific with regard to demand of dowry as well as harassment on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry.;