JUDGMENT
S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of first information report No. 235 dated 11-10-88 registered at Police Station, Chandigarh under Section 406/498A/120B I.P.C.
2. In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this case, are, that marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner No. 3 was solemnized at Chandigarh on 7-10-1986. After their marriage both of them started living with parents of respondent No. 1 i.e. petitioners No. 1 and 2. According to the petitioners, the respondent-wife was not happy to live with her in-laws, and, started pressurising the husband to live separately from her in-laws. Husband did not agree and the respondent wife left her matrimonial home.
3. According to the allegations made in the impugned first information report (Annexure P-1) father of the respondent-wife, besides giving cash of Rs. 22000/- gave T.V., Sofa, fridge, and other articles at the time of Thaka ceremony. Thereafter, on 23/24-3-86 he gave Rs. 500/- a cash on the occasion of Ring ceremony and on 6-10-86 besides other customary presents were given At the time of the solemnization of the marriage also, parents of the respondent-wife gave jewellery and other house hold articles. Her in-laws also gave her jewellery at that time. After two months of the marriage, behaviour of parents-in-law and husband changed and they started taunting, and teasing her for bringing less dowry.
4. In June, 1987, her brother-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 4 came to Chandigarh for training and stayed for about four months. His wife petitioner No. 5 also came and stayed for about 1-1/2 months. During their stay both of them, as well as parents-in-law and husband of the respondent taunted her for bringing less dowry and gave her beating and tortured her on trivial matters. In September her parents-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law got her jewellery removed on the pretext that situation was bad during those days and relieved her of her jewellery. Subsequently, on 29-9-1987 all of them turned her out of the house.
5. Counsel for the parties were heard.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted that no allegation concerning entrustment of any particular item or article of dowry to any individual accused, has been specified in the first information report and as such, there is no specific allegation concerning entrustment within the meaning of Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. Secondly, it was submitted that there are no specific allegations that after the initial entrustment, the jewellery or the other valuable articles constituing Istri-Dhan of the wife were misappropriated by the petitioners.
7. Perusal of the first information report relates to general allegations that the jewellery and other articles were given by the parents of the wife to the petitioners at the time of solemnization of the marriage and also at the time Thaka and other ceremonies took place. The general allegations referred to above in the impugned first information report, do not mention, as to which specific item, or article of dowry referred to above was handed over to any particular accused-petitioner. The allegation in respect of entrustment of specific articles of dowry (i.e. jewellery and other valuable articles) to a particular accused, has not been levelled with any degree of certainty. Thus, the entrustment of such articles within the meaning of Section 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code has not been alleged. Nor the general allegations that in June 1986 all the petitioners were able to get the entire jewellery of the wife on the pretext that the jewellery was to be kept in safe, would constitute individual criminal liability for commission of offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. As far as the allegation concerning harassment or cruelty against the petitioners with a view to coerce the wife, or, her parents for bringing inadequate dowry, or, any unlawful demand in respect of more dowry is concerned, perusal of the first information report makes out prima facie a case as far as petitioners No. 1 to 3 are concerned, there are specific allegations against the said petitioners that they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by the respondent-wife and they are said to have continuously harassed and tortured her.
9. As far as petitioners No. 4 and 5 are concerned, in the first information report it is specified that petitioner No. 4 came to Chandigarh in June 1987 and stayed for four months and during this interval his wife i.e. petitioner No. 5 also came and stayed for about 1/1-2 months at the house of petitioners No. 1 and 2. The respondent-wife earlier had filed criminal complaint under Section 406, 498A, I.P.C. (Annexure P-2) against the present petitioners, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar. In para No. 5 of the said complaint, it is mentioned that on 20-6-1987 after giving beatings all the accused turned her put from the residence in the bare clothes. Her gifts and other valuables belonging to the wife were retained by the accused with criminal intent to deprive her of these articles. However, no specific allegation in the complaint (Annexure P-2) were made against petitioners No. 4 and 5, either, that they harassed or, acted towards the respondent wife with cruelty for bringing inadequate dowry. Allegations in the first information report qua mis-conduct of petitioners No. 4 and 5 referred to above, which, were subsequently added in the first information report (Annexure P-1) cannot be relied upon. It is also pertinent to note that both petitioners No. 4 and 5 mainly resided at Ambala Cantt, whereas, petitioners No. 1 to 3 and the respondent-wife stayed at Chandigarh, after the marriage of petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report; is party quashed as far as petitioners No. 4 and 5 are concerned, in respect of the offences under Section 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the said report is quashed qua petitioners No. 1 to 3 only concerning commission of offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. However, the trial court would proceed with the case against petitioners No. 1 to 3 in respect of commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. according to law, and dispose it of expeditiously. This petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.