- (1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer for quashing FIR No. 98 dated 19.06.2012 under Section 498 -A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State counsel and counsel for complainant - respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of complainant and petitioner No. 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No. 1. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20.01.2010 and a female child wasborn from the wedlock on 07.01.2011. There are also several allegations including entrustment of dowry articles. An amount of Rs. 8,00,000/ - was spent in the marriage. It is stated by the complainant that petitioner No. 1 demanded further cash of Rs. 6,00,000/ - for settling in U.K. Some articles were given to the in -laws of complainant even after birth of the child. It was further stated that petitioner No. 1 was not happy with the birth of a female child and behavior of all the petitioners with respondent No. 2 was not good. They were treating her with cruelty on this account as well as for not meeting the demand of more dowry.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the facts mentioned in the FIR are manifestly wrong as it was stated that the complainant was living with her parents since 26.03.2010 whereas the certificate (Annexure P -4) issued by the Nursing Home shows that the child was born at Ferozepur in the month of January 2011 where the in -laws family of complainant resides. I do not find any substance in the above contention as the contents of FIR make it very clear that the complainant is residing with her parents since 26.03.2011. The date mentioned in the initial part of FIR is apparently an error and should not be given any importance in the instant petition. It may be noted that the FIR was registered after preliminary inquiry held by the police. The complaint to the police was made on 09.12.2011 and FIR was registered on 09.6.2012. The matter has been investigated and challan presented against the petitioners before the trial Court on 30.04.2013. There is no stay granted by this Court but strangely the trial Court is yet to hear the petitioners on the question of charge. It is a matter of concern that the no effective proceedings were being held for sucha long time. It is quite pertinent to note that when the instant petition was listed on 16.07.2012 the main contention of the petitioner was that a compromise had been effected between the petitioners and the complainant and petitioners were ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the said compromise and also to keep the complainant with them. The matter was also referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court but Mediation failed. The very basis which was highlighted at the time of issuing notice does not therefore subsist.;