T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the present petition (Criminal Misc. No. 44196-M of 2006) filed by Harmel Singh and Ranjit Kaur and also the petition (Criminal Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006) filed by Kulwinder Singh Padda and Sonia Padda, as both the petitions have been filed for quashing of the same FIR and the status of the petitioners is same in both the petitions qua respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 129 dated 17.4.2003 registered at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh at the instance of respondent No. 2. An application was submitted by respondent No. 2 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh on 20.12.2002, wherein she stated that she was married to Sandeep Singh Dhillon, on 17.2.2002 at Chandigarh. At the time of her marriage, her parents and other relatives spent lavishly. However, soon after the marriage, her husband and her in-laws started treating her rudely. On the 3rd day itself her husband and his family members cut the suhag chura against her wish. She was forced to prepare all the three meals of the day for the whole family. She was mentally harassed. Her belongings were kept under lock and key. So much so, she was asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- for wearing each of her wedding suits, which were given by her parents. On March 5, 2002 she and her husband went to Dalhousie for honeymoon. However, on the way his mobile kept on flashing messages. When the mobile stopped receiving signals, her husband became angry and, thus, remained under stress the whole night. On the following day, both of them returned, although they had planned to stay there for a week or so. A week later, there was Bhog of Sri Akhand Path. Her relatives, who had come from Canada, gave shagun in Indian currency but her husband did not accept the same and started demanding dollars. On the following day, her relatives from Canada were to go back and they called her on phone to say good-bye. At this her in-laws realised that no more dowry would come and they started harassing her, both mentally and physically. Later on, she was informed by her husband and in-laws that Sandeep Singh Dhillon had been earlier married to some girl from Ludhiana and the said girl was turned out because she did not fulfil their demands. Accordingly, the complainant was warned that she should fulfil their demands else she will meet the same fate. After a month of the marriage, her parents called her on phone to congratulate her but she started crying. At this, her in-laws disconnected the phone and threatened her not to disclose her difficulty. In fact, she was asked to say that she was very happy. Her husband and her in-laws threatened her that they have criminals at their beck and call, who could harm her family if she and her family members did not do as asked. On March 19, 2002 her parents desired to meet her but her in-laws did not allow them to do so. She was beaten that very night. She had a severe pain in her left arm, neck and chest. She was sweating and had no other option but to take 20/25 glasses of tank water from the bathroom as her husband and refused to bring drinking water from the kitchen. About a week later, she was taken to a doctor, who was a close friend of her mother-in-law, who gave her a strong injection which had a severe reaction on her body. Three days afterwards, her parents visited her in-laws' house and on seeing her condition they were shocked. They expressed a desire to take her with them but her mother-in-law created a scene. Her parents had no other option but to leave. Finally, on March 29, 2002 her husband and father-in-law left her at her parents house and she was told to bring Rs. 50,000/- in cash if she wanted to return back. She was medically advised for taking complete rest. In the meantime, her husband, who was Chief Officer in Merchant Nevy, went back to his job and she stayed at her parents' place ever since till she represented to the police authorities. At the end of her application, the complainant gave a list of gifts and dowry articles entrusted to each of her in-laws' family members at the time of ring ceremony performed on 27.6.2001 and on the occasion of marriage on 17.2.2002. It was mentioned that Ranjit Kaur and Sonia Padda were given a gold pendent set each while Harmel Singh and Kulwinder Singh were given a gold ring each. Initially, after the conclusion of the investigation, final report/challan was presented by the police against Sandeep Singh Dhillon and Kuldeep Kaur, husband and mother-in- law, respectively, of the complainant whereas Prithipal Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, was found innocent and his name shown in column No. 2. The complainant was, however, not satisfied with the investigation and gave an application on 31.12.2004 to Inspector General of Police for re-investigation. The same was ordered and the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. On 3.5.2005, relevant documents were taken into possession by the police and so also the E-mail and affidavit. Finally, on 5.6.2006 supplementary report/challan was prepared and submitted to the Court against the petitioners and others.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the present petitioners as well as on behalf of Kulwinder Singh Padda and Sonia Padda, who are petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006 that they have been unnecessarily and arbitrarily drawn in as accused at a very belated stage with the sole purpose of satisfying the whims of the complainant. There was not even a single allegation or mention about these petitioners in the complaint dated 20.12.2002 on the basis of which FIR in question was registered on 17.4.2003. Moreover, after thorough investigation, the police presented challan against Sandeep Singh Dhillon and Kuldeep Kaur, husband and mother-in-law, respectively, of the complainant whereas Prithpal Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, was found innocent. After the presentation of the challan, an application was submitted by the complainant to Inspector General of Police for re-investigation, which was ordered. Once a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted, there was no scope for re-investigation and at the most the matter could be simply further investigated. Even after the conclusion of re-investigation, no sufficient evidence was collected to show the complicity of two sisters of Sandeep Singh Dhillon and their respective husband in the present case, apart from the fact that it was mentioned in the FIR that at the time of the marriage, they were given pendent sets and gold rings. During the course of re-investigation, certain E-mails and an affidavit were relied by the prosecution on the basis of which supplementary challan was presented. Finally, it was prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners bet set aside by quashing the FIR and supplementary challan presented by the police.;