AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.—Bishan Dass Arora and his wife Smt. Veeran Wali and their married daughter Shashi Sikri have moved the present petition for quashing of the FIR No. 674 dated 9-10-1989 registered at police station city, Sonepat for offence under Sections 403, 406 or 498A read with Section 120B of the IPC at the instance of Mrs. Rubina Pahwa Arora wife of Kanwal Nain Arora, who in other words is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners Bishan Dass Arora and Smt. Veeran Wali.
It has been alleged in this petition that Mrs. Rubina Pahwa Arora was long ago married to Mr. G. C. Bajaj on 7-9-1981 at New Delhi but there was a divorce. Kanwal Nain Arora was also a divorcee and a match was sought by means of an advertisement in Hindustan Times dated 11-1-1987 and there were negotiations and the marriage was solemnised at Delhi on 9-2-1987 between Kanwal Nain Arora and Rubina Pahwa Arora. After the marriage Rubina Pahwa Arora stayed with her husband Kanwal Nain Arora only for a couple of days at Sonepat and this small station was not liked by the wife. Both the husband and the wife proceeded to Delhi and then flew to Canada. It has been further alleged that at Canada the wife did not appreciate much her stay with the husband Kanwal Nain Arora and she came to India. However, after a few weeks Kanwal Nain Arora the husband also followed her and came to Delhi. Rubina Pahwa Arora did not like to spend time at the matrimonial home and it may be mentioned here that she is an Air Hostess and was not inclined to leave her job either. The valuables which the accused now petitioners are alleged to possess haye been enumerated on pages 2 and 3 of the complaint Annexure P-1 and in brief these are reproduced as under :--
On engagement on 7th February, 1987, mother of Rubina gave the following items of jewellery :--
(1) A pair of diamond tops.
(2) A diamond ring with three stones weighing 64 cents/points;
(3) A Kundan set comprising of necklace, tops and rings.
Items given to Kanwal Nain on engagement one ring of 22 cts. gold an imported watch and Rs. 1001/-.
The items given to the parents and the sisters of Kanwal Nain :--
(1) Rs. 501/- each to the two sisters along with one saree each;
(2) A gold chain of 22 C, purity gold weighing approx. 33 gms. including a pendant of 10 gms.
(3) A heavy saree;
(4) Three piece suit material of imported cloth was given to Rubin''s father-in-law.
On engagement Rubina''s mother-in-law gave two gold bangles of approx. 1 tola each, a wrist watch. They also gave an expensive engagement ring, which had a diamond weighing 1 carat mounted in 18 C. gold, which diamond was of a high purity, colour and clarity.
On marriage, the mother, brother and sister and other relatives of Rubina gave her the following items as ''Istridhan'' :--
(1) Two sets of gold jewellery;
(2) One set of diamond jewellery;
(3) 21 Sarees;
(4) 11 expensive salwar suits;
(5) Rs. 30,000 in cash.
Mother, brother and sister of Rubina gave the following gifts to Kanwal Nain and his family :--
(1) Rs. 1001/- in cash;
(2) 3 Sarees.
(3) Two suit materials.
(4) Two gold rings of 22 c. purity gold, weighing approx. 9 gms. each for each of two sisters-in-law and one diamond ring for mother-in-law.
In laws of Rubina gave her the following items as Istridhan :--
(1) One diamond jewellery set;
(2) Two diamond rings.
(3) One Rani Har (Necklace).
It has been further alleged in the revision that the articles of valuables referred to above were never given or entrusted to any of the petitioners at any time either at the time of finalisation of marriage or thereafter and that the challan was registered merely because the complaint in the form of a letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Police Sonepat by Rubina Pahwa Arora. It has also been specifically mentioned that the first husband Shri Anil Bajaj resident of Defence Colony, New Delhi was able to secure a mutual divorce with considerable difficulty from Rubina Pahwa from the court of District Judge, Delhi, on 2-5-1986 and a copy of the judgment is Annexure P-5. Besides copies of the pleadings of the previous petitions have also been placed on record by the present petitioners. It has been prayed that the proceedings pending as a consequence of the registration of the FIR in question be quashed to save the petitioners from harassment.
On behalf of the three accused petitioners while referring to para No. 5 of the typed complaint which otherwise runs into 17 typed pages that she had scarcely stayed with her in-laws for two days along with her husband Kanwal Nain after the marriage and thereafter they left for Delhi and flew to Canada, where such was the position and the wife was not a kind of teenager it was never expected that she deposited her ornaments or valuables with the in-laws. There is a casual allegation that her mother-in-law is a greedy lady. However, there appears to be no substance. The age of the father-in-law has been mentioned as 70 and that of the mother-in-law 65 in the title of the typed complaint copy of which is Annexure P.I. Their own daughter Shashi Sikri is married one and settled in New Delhi as per particulars and address given in Annexure P-1 itself. None of her own relations or other person has been named as a witness by Rubina Pahwa Arora and this may go to show that there was no eye witness to the alleged entrustment of articles of jewellery or money to both of her in-laws and her sister-in-law.
There is an allegation that various tactics of harassment were adopted and her infant son was denied milk and proper food and that if the members of her family failed to meet their demands she would be humiliated to and implicated in false cases. However, it appears that no case was lodged against this daughter-in-law and it does not appear convincing that such elderly in-laws expected any money or valuables from the complainant air-hostess and who earlier suffered a divorce from another husband Shri Anil Bajaj, on 2-5-1986 from the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi (Annexure P. 5).
Though the present petition seeking the relief that the FIR be quashed has been opposed yet on behalf of the State nothing has been brought on record to show as to what has been recovered from any of the three petitioners especially when the investigation was never stayed by any order of the court.
After perusal of the petition, copies of other proceedings and documents brought on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State it is held that the petition succeeds and FIR No. 674 of 1989 of Police Station City Sonepat is hereby quashed vis-a-vis the three petitioners namely Mrs. Shashi Sikri, Mrs. Veeran Wali and Mr. B. D. Arora only.