HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) SANDEEP Sharma, and other petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent against them, annexure P-1 and summoning order annexure P-2.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against her husband Sandeep Sharma, father-in-law H.R. Sharma and mother-in-law Saroj Sharma, father-in-law H.R. Sharma and mother-in-law Saroj Sharma alleging that her marriage was solemnised with petitioner No. 1 on 2nd of July, 1990 at Faridabad in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents and relatives gave sufficient number of dowry articles, ornaments, cash, furniture etc. at the time of engagement and marriage and a total amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs was spent. After marriage she remained with the petitioners for about 15 days at Saharanpur, when she was tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and was subjected to ill treatment. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law instigated their son who in turn humiliated her and made her suffer mental torture. After about 15 days, she came to her parents' house and stayed there for 2-1/2 months. Her husband visited that place 3/4 times but did not show any inclination to take her along. She was told that his parents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and in order to satisfy them, he should be paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Petitioner No. 1 was then given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on 19th of September, 1990 and then he took the complainant with him. She was again not treated properly and was subjected to various sorts of ill-treatment. On 16th of April 1991, a telephonic message was sent by the complainant through a neighbourer to her parents asking them to come to Badayun as her life was in danger. Her brother came upon 17th of April 1991 and found her in a depressed condition. She was under shock at the behaviour of her husband and mother-in-law. On 24th of April 1991, another telephonic message was sent by the complainant to her parents informing them that she was in a serious condition. Her relatives rushed to Badayun and actually found the condition of the complainant serious. She was rushed to Civil Hospital where the doctor informed that she was not taking proper diet and was under mental shock. She disclosed to her brother and mother that she was victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law and she apprehended danger to her life. She was harassed by all the petitioners in order to extract more money. The petitioners retained her dowry articles which were entrusted to them and dishonestly converted the same to their own use. The petitioners alleged that marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the respondent was inter-caste marriage and was materialised through advertisement. Now dowry was presented by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage and it was a simple marriage, where the bride came to her matrimonial home in her wearing clothes. The respondent was of abnormal temperament and of a cruelsome nature. She was unable to adjust herself within the means of income of her husband. She often visited her parents house at Faridabad without their consent and permission. On 24th of April 1991, she left her matrimonial home along with her brother in the absence of the petitioners and while leaving, she took away gold ornaments and clothes of her own and that of her husband. She refused to come and stay with petitioner No. 1, as a result petitioner No. 1 was left with no alternative except to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It was further contended that the respondent was never subjected to maltreatment, in fact petitioners No. 2 and 3 were living in Saharanpur while petitioner No. 1 was living at Badayun. There were no specific averments in the complaint as to which particular article of dowry was handed over to which of the accused and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were denied and the respondent reiterated her case set up in the complaint annexure P-1.;