Sandeep Sarot vs State of Haryana and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid petitions for quashing the FIR (Annexure P6), therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition. However, for facilitation, the facts have been extracted from C.R.M. No. M-22333 of 2009.

The compendium of the facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the limited core question raised in these petitions and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Anju Sarot was solemnized with accused Raj Bahadur Sarot on 4.12.1999, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Sufficient dowry articles were stated to have been given by the parents of the girl to the accused at the time of marriage, but they were not satisfied with the same. They demanded Rs. 10 lacs and started harassing and giving beatings to her.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in the FIR (Annexure P6), in all, according to the complainant that all the accused treated her with cruelty on account of and in connection with the demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Anju Sarot (respondent No. 2), the present case was registered against the petitioner alongwith his co-accused, vide FIR No. 697 dated 19.12.2005 under Sections 353, 406, 498A and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak in the manner indicated here-in-above.

Petitioner Sandeep Sarot, brother-in-law (Devar) (in C.R.M. No. M-22333 of 2009) and petitioner Jagjit Kaur (mother-in-law) (in C.R.M. No. M-14218 of 2010), did not feel satisfied with the lodging of the criminal prosecution against them and filed the present petitions for quashing the FIR (Annexure P6) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto in this context, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

At the very outset, the learned Counsel has very fairly conceded that Dr. Poonam Chaudhary and other co-accused of the petitioner, have earlier filed a similar petition for quashing of the same FIR, vide C.R.M. No. M-44330 of 2007, which came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.N. Jindal, J.), vide order dated 5.11.2008, which is in the following manner:

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioners being married sister-in-law and her husband and they having been married 9 years prior to the marriage are residing separate at Yamuna Nagar. They have nothing to do with the articles of dowry and the allegations of the maltreatment as alleged in the complaint qua them are not correct. The complaint has been filed to throw the net wider.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case is now fixed for framing of the charge.

Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial court to take into consideration all the pleas including that of separate residence of the petitioners in a separate town at the time of framing of charge and pass a speaking order in this regard. However, their personal appearance during the proceedings shall remain exempted except on material dates as it deems appropriate.

As almost similar allegations are assigned to the present petitioners in the same FIR, therefore, to my mind, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of the above indicated petitions in the same terms on the basis of doctrine of stare-decisis in the obtaining circumstance of the present case.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to take into consideration and deal with all the pleas raised by the petitioners at the time of framing of charge and pass a speaking order in this regard.