Kamlesh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of F.I.R. No. 547 dated 3.9.1992 registered with Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad u/s 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the subsequent proceedings heving taken place in pursuance thereto.

Smt. Madhu daughter of Shri Ram Lal got married on 15.12.1990 to one Satish Rumar son of Shri Hari Ghand, i.e. brother of the petitioners. Unfortunately, the marriage did not work out and had to fall out. A petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband in which Smt. Madhu made a statement that there is no possibility of co-habiting with her husband. She also stated that she wanted to file a divorce petition. Vide order dated 12.8.1992, the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissed the petition in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties to the marriage. It is recorded in the order that the husband had returned the items of dowry, as mentioned in the list dated 12.8.1992, to the wife. It is also recorded that wife showed her intention of seeking divorce against her husband. It was only en 3.9.1992, an F.I.R. was got registered against the Petitioners, their brother and father u/s 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad.

The Petitioners seek quashing of the F.I.R. on the ground that there is no specific allegation against them and in fact only general allegations have been made. Further, the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence against the Petitioners or there is any material to show that the Petitioners at any stage were involved in treating respondent No. 2 with cruelty. Respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 have filed reply to the petition denying the avements made in the petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel, I am of the view that the F.I.R. qua the Petitioners is unliable to be quashed. A persual of the F.I.R. shows that the allegations made against the petitioners are general in nature and are not specific. At the time when the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and a statement was made by respondent No. 2, she had not alleged that the petitioners at any point of time had treated her with cruelty or given her beatings. As a matter of fact, she stated that she cannot assume cohabitation with her husband. The compromise order 12.8.1992 finds mention that the articles which were given to respondent No. 2 at the time of marriage, were returned. Counsel have also stated that marriage between respondent No. 2 and Satisb Kumar has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. They have also placed on record copy of the order vide which marriage was dissolved by mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This order also does not indicate that respondent No. 1 was serious in making allegations against the petitioners. Petitioners, who were unmarried at the time the F.I.R. was lodged, have since been married and are living with their respective husbands.

Resultantly, I find that it is a fit case where F.I.R. qua the petitioners can be quashed and consequently the same is quashed with no order as to costs.