CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.2.2009
Smt. Phool Mirza and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The present petition has been preferred by mother-in-law
and father-in-law of the complainant for quashing of an FIR, registered
against them under Sections 498-A, 406 & 120-B IPC at Police Station
Sector 7, Faridabad.
The allegations in the FIR are that marriage of the
complainant was solemnized with Feroze alias Mohd. Farooq. Though
sufficient amount was spent on the marriage and number of gifts were
given by parents of the complainant, the family of Feroze remained
dissatisfied. The complainant was subjected to harassment for bringing
insufficient dowry. She was subjected to various atrocities and when
she could not meet the demand of Rs.2.00 lacs, she was turned out of the
matrimonial home.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioners have been residing separately from the couple and have been
CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 2
falsely implicated in the case. According to the counsel, the marriage
was solemnized way back on 28th November, 1990 and thus the present
FIR is only abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has submitted
that the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as the allegations
contained therein are absurd and inherently improbable. Moreover, the
proceedings have been instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of
the apex court reported in Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji
Sahai, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 463 and Baijnath Jha vs.
Sita Ram and another, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 428 in
support of his arguments.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have
given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It is evident that the complainant filed a complaint under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the present FIR was lodged.
The complainant has levelled number of allegations in the FIR regarding
demands of dowry made from her from time to time by her husband and
the petitioners. She has also alleged that she was mercilessly beaten up
when she was unable to meet the demand of a car and Rs.2.00 lacs. On
15th September, 2006, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her
jewellery and other articles were retained by the accused.
Under the circumstances, I do not think that it is a fit case
for quashing of the FIR at this stage. As regards the argument of the
CRM No. M-5546 of 2009 3
counsel that the petitioners are residing separately, the same can be
examined by the Investigating Officer as the petition has been filed at
the stage when investigation of the case is still pending. There can be
no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the judgments relied
upon by the counsel in Priya Vrat’s case and Baijnath’s case (supra).
However, it is not possible for this court at this stage to arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings have been instituted by the complainant
out of malice and ulterior motive nor is it possible at this stage to say
that the allegations levelled in the FIR are absurd and inherently
improbable.
Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case of
quashing of the FIR in inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
The petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
February 26, 2009
‘rajpal’
