J.L.Mehta and anr. vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Dr. J.L. Mehta and his daughter Smt. Sarita Gogia have moved this Criminal Miscellaneous under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing First Information Report No. 136, dated 101090, registered at PS West Chandigarh, under secs. 406, 498A, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code and secs. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the subsequent proceedings.

The impugned FIR, annexure P1, has been registered on the application moved by Smt. Shalini Mehta wife of Capt. Pardeep Mehta. It is alleged therein that the marriage between the parties was performed on 14289 at Chandigarh. and it was negotiated on the basis of an advertisement got published in the Tribune by the Mehta family. The complainant was given dowry, detailed in paragraph 2 of the complaint. Gifts were also made byher inlaws. Within a fortnight of the marriage, Smt Sarita, her sisterinlaw started taunting her that her parents had not given enough dowry expected of their status and her brother, being a commissioned officer in the Army. They had expected a new car in dowry, but even a scooter was not given. This statement of Smt. Sarita was supported by complainant''s fatherinlaw Dr. J.L. Mehta and motherin law Smt. Sneh Mehta. They asked her to convey this fact to her father that either a new Maruti car or its equivalent in cash be given. Her husband also showed his displeasure and made that very demand. She, however, told them that her father was not in a position to meet this demand. All the dowry, including most of the jewellery and cash, was taken away by her motherinlaw and she was given only one ring, two gold bangles and mangalsutra and some clothes for daily wear. On the instigation by her parentsinlaw and her sisterinlaw, her husband started treating her with cruelty while they were at Mhow (MP) and compelled her to carry heavy luggage/trunks, resulting in miscarriage. She fell ill and became physically weak. She was made to work as a maid and in Sept., 1989 she fell ill. She remained admitted in the Military Hospital. During her illness, her husband told her that she would not become mother and his inheritance would go to his nephew (sister''s son) Master Paras. After completing the training at Mhow, she came in the company of her husband to Chandigarh and stayed with her inlaws. On no occasion she was allowed to visit her parents alone. After availing of the leave, her husband took her to Srinagar and he continued committing the acts of cruelly towards her. He used to threaten her that he would kill her and make it appear as an accident, Since she over cautions, she frustrated the plans of her husband. On 21790 her husband brought her to Chandigarh and left her at the busstand. She reached her parents house and has been living with them since then. On the basis of above allegations, she complains of cruel treatment and tortures on account of inadequate dowry.

Petitioner1 is the fatherinlaw and petitioner2 is the sisterinlaw of the complainant.

There are allegations of cruelty against the husband and retention of dowry articles by motherinlaw and the nonpetitioners. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations made are of giving her some taunts and soon after the marriage giving out their mind that they had expected a car in dowry and that she has not brought even a scooter in marriage. It is also complained that it was at the instigation of her parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw that her husband maltreated her. This maltreatment is stated to have been meted out to her at Mhow and Srinagar where her husband remained posted. There is no allegation of any illtreatment during her stay at her inlaws'' house in the months of January and February, 1989 when her husband had come on a month''s leave. However, she was not allowed to meet her parents.

The allegations levelled against both her sisterinlaw and fatherinlaw are vague in nature and they do not make out any criminal offence. If some comments were made by Smt. Sarita Gogia on the dowry given, these were in the form of normal behaviour of the ladies who are just fond of making fun of others. The wagging of the tongue of a lady is, rather, proverbial. Making of such utterances, as are complained of, do not constitute criminal acts.

The complainant has another cause to implicate her sisterinlaw. She has no children of her own and her husband had been making a claim that he shall appoint his sister''s son, named Master Paras as the heir. These pronouncements by her husband had made the sisterinlaw as the target. She and her minor child were the adversaries and the complainant must wreak vengeance.

So far as the petitioners before this Court are concerned, the allegations are frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and malafide and made to wreak vengeance on account of the marriage of the complainant, having gone to the rocks. The petitioners have only been involved due to their close relationship with the complainant''s husband. Continuation of these proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of the Court.

I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

Misc allowed.