The Haryana Act's definition of dowry, the limited scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC, and the trend of implicating family members in dowry-related cases were central legal principles established in the judgment.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. Vidya Devi mother of one Vijay Kumar has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the Code) and has prayed for quashing FIR No. 76 dated 26.3.1994 registered against her Under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

2. The version unfolded in the petition by the petitioner Vidya Devi is that her son Vijay Kumar was married to one Malti, respondent No. 2. Vijay Kumar was allegedly murdered on the night intervening 13/14.9.1992 by Malti, his wife and her relations. Vidya Devi, petitioner filed an application before the police for registration of the case against respondent No. 2, her father, brother and other relations. However, the police failed to take any action which resulted in filing of complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate but she did not succeed. Eventually, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 758 of 1992 before this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in which directions were issued by this Court on 31.5.1993 which read as under:

"...It is ordered that a case be registered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as described by Vidya Devi for the first time on 16.9.1992, Annexure P2 within a period of 15 days and the police shall proceed to investigate it. It is also observed that the investigation shall be carried out by a Deputy Superintendent of Police."

3. Accordingly, FIR No. 294 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Karnal on 25.6.1993. Challan has been presented Under Sections 302/201 read with Sections 120B/148/149, Indian Penal Code against Malti, widow of Vijay Kumar, Ram Chand, her father, Shakuntla Devi, her mother, Deepak, Kumar, her brother and three others. The allegation further is that after the issuance of directions by this Court on 31.5.1993, respondent No. 2 as a counterblast filed a complaint on 2.11.1993 in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal. Exercising powers Under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate sent the complaint to the police and FIR No. 76 was registered on 26.3.1994 at Police Station Indri, Karnal Under Sections 406/498-A, inter alia, against the petitioner. In the FIR numerous allegations have been levelled against various persons. However, the allegation of entrustment of Istri Dhan levelled against the petitioner, mother of Vijay Kumar, by respondent No. 2 is that she was entrusted with one blanket, two suits and Rs. 1,001/- in cash. It is further alleged that apart from the aforementioned articles no other article was even alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner. It is submitted that aforesaid articles would not in any case constitute part of Istree Dhan or dowry. The allegation of the petitioner further is that FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 is a counterblast to the directions issued on 31.5.1993 by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 758 of 1992 and the registration of FIR No. 294 dated 25.6.1993 against respondent No. 2 at PS. Sadar Karnal Under Sections 302/201/148/149, Indian Penal Code.

4. On 7.7.1994 when this matter came up for motion hearing, this Court has stayed further proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Mr. N.K. Joshi, learned State Counsel has argued that FIR cannot be quashed because it is not a case where no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel there are specific allegations of entrustment of blanket, two suits and cash amount of Rs. 1,001/- to the petitioner who is mother-in-law of respondent No 2. He has further submitted that allegation of misappropriation of Istree Dhan can be substantiated by adducing evidence jjy the complainant. He has further pointed out that challan in this case has been presented on 26.3.1996.

6. Having heard the learned State Counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that a perusal of the FIR would show that apart from the allegation of entrustment of one blanket, two suits and cash" amou