- (1.) The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 202 dated 11.11.2014, registered under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station City South, District Moga and subsequent proceedings. Respondent No.3 Shelja was married to Bal Gobind on 28.05.2013 at Savai Madhopur, Rajasthan. Petitioner No.1 Vishali Mahindra @ Shallu is the sister of Bal Gobind, who was married to petitioner No.2 Rajan Mahindra. On 26.12.2013 Bal Gobind died. About a year later, Vijay Kumar (respondent No.2), father of Shelja got the FIR registered alleging that he had spent around Rs.20 lacs and after marriage, Shelja told him that Bal Gobind was suffering from some ailment and he usually remained ill and they were kept in dark. Shelja told him that the father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured her saying that they had not respected the son-in-law. Shelja also told them Rajan Mahindra and Shallu Mahindra used to utter bad words. The complainant further alleged some foul-play in the death of Bal Gobind. Shelja stayed for some days at her parental home and then returned to the matrimonial home. She told the complainant that she was tortured and harassed by her in-laws and relatives and asked her not to speak about Bal Gobind's illness. The complainant and his wife went to Savai Madhopur where they were insulted and their daughter was thrown out of the house. The accused retained her istridhan and also criminally intimidated them on phone.
(2.) The case was registered and investigated. Challan was filed against the petitioners and other accused. Quashing was sought, inter alia, on the ground that Shelja resided at her matrimonial home in Rajasthan while the petitioners were residing at Ludhiana and they had no occasion to harass and humiliate Shelja and they could not be said to be beneficiary to the alleged demand of dowry; no specific instance of cruelty or harassment in relation to demand of dowry had been referred against the petitioners nor there were any allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to them, which they had misappropriated and the allegations of criminal intimidation were general in nature without specifying as to who had extended the threat and that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and omnibus and they had been roped in with a malafide intention just to wreak vengeance . In the reply filed on behalf of State, it was averred that enquiry into the matter was conducted by DSP(City),Moga and the case was rightly registered against the petitioners and co-accused against whom there were specific allegations of giving dowry. It was further averred that from the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 506 IPC were found attracted towards the petitioners and others and challan against them was presented in Court for trial.
(3.) In the reply filed by the complainant, it was asserted that the petitioners and other in-laws of Shelja were very greedy and they started harassing her for bringing less dowry from the first day of the marriage. The accused were aware of Bal Gobind's illness but they intentionally concealed it from them. Petitioner No.1 increased the miseries of Shelja after marriage and after death they turned her out so that the property of Bal Gobind could be usurped. It was further asserted that the petitioners were entrusted with dowry and they pressurized Shelja to bring more dowry. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The question that arises is whether the facts of the case call for interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are the sister-in-law and her husband respectively of respondent No.3. In catena of judgments, the Courts have viewed the seriousness of the implication and over-implication of the relations of the husband by exaggerating the allegations in the cases of matrimonial discord. It is relevant to refer to some of them.;