- (1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 127 dated 20.08.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arise therefrom. Brief facts of the case are that Gurpreet Kaur respondent No. 2 lodged aforesaid FIR against nine persons including the petitioners as well as her husband Surjit Singh (non-petitioner) under Sections 498- A/406 IPC alleging therein that she got married to Surjit Singh on 10.05.2006 by way of Anand Karj at Gurudwara Sahib, Ismailabad and the remaining marriage programme was held at Maharaja Banquet Hall, Ismailabad because at that time the parents of respondent no.2 were residing at Village Naishi, District Kurukshetra. Thereafter, the family of respondent no.2 shifted to Village Bishnandi, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot. It is alleged in the FIR that in the marriage her parents had spent about Rs. 12.00 lacs. She also alleges that about 20 Tolas of Gold was given on her marriage, out of which chain to mother-in-law, 22 bangles to sisters-in-law (Nanads), 2 bangles to sister-in-law (Jethani), Kara and rings given to petitioner no.1 and a neckless set, weighing 3 tolas, 6 bangles weighing 4 tolas, ear rings weighing 1- tolas were given to respondent no.2. Apart from this number of jewellery, other articles and istridhan i.e. 200 utensils of steel, brass, kansi, one fridge and many others things of common kitchen use, Colour TV, Washing machiner, furniture, godrej almirah as detailed in the FIR (Annexure P/1) were also given. These dowry articles (as mentioned in the FIR - Annexure P/1) were entrusted to her in-laws. It is her case that her in-laws had promised that the same were to be returned to respondent no.2 as and when demanded by her. It is also mentioned that before the marriage ceremony, Thaka had taken place. At that time also, Rs. 2 lac were given to Surjit Singh-husband for purchase of car. He purchased the motorcycle and embezzled the remaining amount. Thereafter, she stayed in her matrimonial home for about few weeks and during this period her in-laws started taunting that her parents had not given sufficient dowry as per their status. They have not given a big car according to their status. They started mal-treating respondent no.2. It is the case of respondent no.2 that they used to tell her parents and the family members that insufficient dowry had been given according to their status. The parental family of respondent no.2 many times made the accused understand not to taunt by saying about inadequate dowry. During this period, respondent no.2 became pregnant. The parents of respondent no.2 told that they had already spent sufficient amount on the marriage and they cannot give more. On this, the in-laws started mal-treating and harassing respondent no.2. A female child, namely, Khushpreet Kaur was born. All the expenses were borne by the parents of respondent no.2. At that time, the in-laws of respondent no.2 demanded Rs. 2 lacs and pressed upon her to bring the same, otherwise they would not allow her to enter the house. It is alleged that the same has happened at the house of respondent no.2 in the presence of various persons. It is alleged in the FIR that the in-laws were habitual to use filthy language and threatened that if respondent no.2 came to the matrimonial house, she must bring a Safari Car and Rs. 2 lacs. The demand continued to increase from time to time. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted and FIR was registered. The FIR is very lengthy. The sum and substance of the same has been extracted herein above.
(2.) Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed their respective replies. Respondent no.1 in his reply has submitted that the FIR has been registered after due enquiry. Challan has been presented and charge has been framed. The case has been fixed for prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that FIR has been registered and during investigation it has been found that petitioner no.1 is the real brother of the husband of respondent no.1 and petitioner no.2 is Jethani of respondent No.2. During investigation, it has been found that they took active part in the family affairs and living separately is no excuse.
(3.) Respondent No.2 also submitted in her reply that sufficient dowry was given. The behaviour of in-law was very harsh towards respondent no.2. Many times demand was raised. When a famale child was born to respondent no.2, they further demanded a car and threatened that if respondent no.2 failed to bring Safari car and Rs.2 lacs then she should not enter their house. The behavour of the in-laws was always cruel towards respondent no.2 and they have mentally harassed her. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;