MEHTAB S.GILL, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as per FIR (Annexure P1), there is no specific allegations of demand for dowry or illtreatment of respondent No.2.. He has further stated that during the course of the investigation, the respondent-State had while presenting the challan placed both Kumari Neeraj Khanna and Kumari Ruchi Khanna in column No.2, as they were found innocent.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State has argued that the impugned order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure P4) has been passed after the trial Court took the relevant evidence into consideration. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition with their assistance.
(3.) In FIR No.17 dated 6.2.1999 Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala (Annexure P1), there are no specific allegations against Kumari Neeraj Khanna and Kumari Ruchi Khanna. In the impugned order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure P4), trial Court has stated that it has gone through the statement of complainant Rekha, which was given in Court and that respondent Rekha had stated that she was tortured to bring more dowry and also beatings were given to her by Kumari Neeraj Khanna and Kumari Ruchi Khanna. Statement of respondent Rekha in Court which the learned trial Court had relied upon is an improvement on the complaint and FIR (Annexure P1) made by respondent No.2 before the police at the time of recording of the FIR. No specific allegations have been made against Kumari Neeraj Khanna and Kumari Ruchi Khanna in FIR, FIR No.17 dated 6.2.1999 under section 498-A IPC Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala (Annexure P1). Impugned FIR is quashed qua Kumari Neeraj Khanna and Kumari Ruchi Khanna and all subsequent proceedings including the order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure P4) is also set aside. With the above direction, petition is disposed of as such.;