- (1.) Smt. Sarla and her husband Roshan Lal, the petitioners have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 362 dated 30.7.2011 registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad, District Faridabad for an offence punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as being illegal. The contents of the FIR lodged against Jitender , the husband, Smt Sarla, the mother-in-law and Roshan Lal, the father-in-law, that would be necessary for disposal of this petition can be reproduced as under: Rashmi was married with accused no.1 (Jitender) on 20.11.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In this marriage, the parents of Rashmi spent around Rs. 20.00 lakhs which was beyond their capacity. After sometime of the marriage, the above said accused told Rashmi that the dowry given by her father was less and that her father had looted them. They also declared that they felt shy of showing the dowry to others. In the period of two years, after the marriage, the accused had withdrawn her salary and arrears and have used the same to the denial of Rashmi and they have even threatened her of being killed and they even made an attempt in that regard. In the last 2-1/2 years, Rashmi was mentally tortured and when she felt that the accused would kill her by torturing her daily then she ran away from there and came to her parents. She then told the whole story to her family and she gave a written application to A.C.P., Ballabhgarh on 25.4.2011 against the accused persons which was sent to Women Cell, Sector 12, Faridabad. Women Cell called both the parties and tried to mediate between them. Both the parties were called on five different dates and on 10.6.2011, when it was 5 th day of mediation, a compromise was arrived at between the parties which was reduced to writing. The two sides agreed to get mutual divorce and to pay almost half of the expenditure incurred in the marriage. For this purpose, the parties were to appear in the court on 11.7.2011 and were to file a divorce petition.
(2.) On 11.7.2011, the date fixed, the boy side did neither come nor had given any information. The Women Cell even tried to make a telephonic contact with the boy side but they did not pick up the phone. A written notice was then sent to the boy side which was not even received by them.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 2 is serving at Kurukshetra and even remained there as Warden of the hostel. According to him, after the marriage, she claims to have been harassed. He has further submitted that she has further mentioned in her complaint that her salary was usurped by the petitioners and lastly, the allegation is that threat was given to eliminate her.;