JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J. Petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No. 3 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 6th December, 1992. From 6th - December, 1992 to 8th March, 1994, respondent No. 3 stayed with Petitioner No. 1 at Bhopal. During this time, the mother of respondent No. 3 had also stayed with them as a son was born to respondent No. 3 in Bhopal on 22nd February, 1994. On 8th March, 1994 when the mother of respondent No. 3 wanted to return to Delhi, petitioner No. I sent respondent No. 3 also to Delhi alongwith her and told her that he would come to Delhi to fetch her back to Bhopal after about two months. However, as per the contention of respondent No. 3 till date petitioner No. I had not come to fetch her back to Bhopal.

2. On 29th December, 1994 on a complainant of respondent No. 3, FIR No. 683/94 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC was registered against the petitioners. It was alleged by the said respondent in the complaint that after the marriage the petitioners used to harass her for more dowry. While petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of respondent No. 3, petitioner No, 3 is the sister of her husband. After recording the statement of witnesses and investigation of the matter, challan was filed in the Court in August, 1995. The Court had taken cognizance of the matter and the petitioners were summoned. The petitioners have now filed this petition for quashing the FIR registered against them.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that no prima facie has been made out against them for an offence under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations levelled against them are wholly vague and uncertain. It is contended that merely because the petitioner No. I had not recalled his wife back to matrimonial home Will not mean that the petitioners have treated her with cruelty and consequently, according to them, no case under Section 498-A IPC was made out. It is further contended that the allegations have been made by respondent No. 3 mala fide with a view to implicate and drag them falsely in the criminal case as the marriage of petitioner No. 3 was scheduled to be held on 3rd December, 1994.

4. Respondent No. 3 in her complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered, has said that during the time she stayed in matrimonial, home in Delhi, her father-in-law tried to make immoral advances towards her and he did not allow her to go out with her husband and the sister of her husband was fully in league with her father in his attempt to make advances towards respondent No. 3. They also used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry. In March, 1993 when her husband is stated to have visited Delhi from Bhopal, she informed him about all these things and she accordingly accompanied him to Bhopal in the last week of March, 1993. However, her father-in-law telephoned her husband to say that he had to undergo a bypass operation of the heart so she should be sent back to Delhi at once. In May, 1993 when the respondent No. 3 and her husband came to Delhi, they learnt that there was no operation scheduled for her father-in-law and he had used this device only to call her back in Delhi. When she wanted to go with her husband to Bhopal, her father-in-law and sister-in-law told her husband that she should be left in Delhi and first she should get from her parents the price of a scooter and only then she would be allowed to go to given to her by her parents. They are alleged to have even kept the clothes of respondent No., 3 and the respondent No. 3 and her husband, therefore, returned empty handed to Bhopal on 17th May, 1993. The father-in-law of respondent No. 3 reached Bhopal on 21st May, 1993 and he is alleged to have started harassing the said respondent No. 3 was pregnant and was to deliver a child, it was her mother who visited her in Bhopal and stayed with them from January, 1994 to 8th March, 1994. Respondent No. 3 returned along with her mother to Delhi on 8th March, 1994 and pet