The court held that the allegations in the FIR were sufficient to constitute offenses under Sections 406/498-A IPC and that the petitioners were not justified in quashing the FIR and the charges framed against them.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R, No. 162 dated 24.9.1990, P.S. Civil Lines, Ludhiana, under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. and seeking further quashing of proceedings in the Court as a result of challan submitted by the police against the petitioners and one Ranbir Singh on the basis of aforementioned First Information Report.

2. This petition was allowed by G.S. Chahal, J. (as he then was) on 3.6.1992 and in consequence thereof. First Information Report along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the charges framed against the petitioners were quashed. Aggrieved of the order of this Court, the complainant filed Criminal Appeals No. 333-334 of 1994 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 10.5.1994, allowed the appeals and has remanded the case to this Court for disposing it of in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the judgment.

3. In brief, the facts are that Ranbir Singh son of Ram Dass got married to one Minakshi Bala daughter of Girdhari Lal on 8.2.1987, It has been alleged in the First Information Report that at the time of marriage, parents of Minakshi Bala gave dowry to Ranbir Singh and his father beyond their means and status. The details of the dowry given at the time of marriage have been mentioned in the First Information Report. Further, it has been stated by the complainant that when the marriage party came to (sic) wife Satya Devi, her husbands elder brothers wife namely Devyanti and Kusum and her husbands elder brother, Sudhir, started saying that T.V. and Fridge have not been given. Her mother-in-law removed two golden sets, her husbands elder brothers wife Devyanti removed four golden bangles and Kusum, elder brothers wife removed a pair of earrings besides four expensive suits and four sarees which were removed by Rekha, another elder brothers wife without her consent. The Maruti car given to her by her parents was taken by Sudhir, her husbands elder brother, but after her marriage, she was tormented for bringing insufficient dowry. She was beaten up many a times despite her repeated pleadings that her parents could not afford to fulfil their demands. She gave birth to two daughters, on which they got further annoyed and she was turned out of the house on 13.6.1990 after being beaten and taking away the daughters from her. Her youngest daughter at that time was six months old and used to take her breast milk, but her custody was not given to her in spite of her request that the child would not be able to live without mother and this resulted into death of her daughter, about which she was not informed, nor called for funeral. She has further alleged in the First Information Report that the accused have refused to return her property and articles. On the basis of the First Information Report and statements of the witnesses made under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, challan was presented against the petitioners and Ranbir Singh, her husband and report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framed charges against the petitioners and Ranbir Singh, under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. Petitioners feeling aggrieved against the framing of charges, filed petition in this Court for quashing of First Information Report, report of the Police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and also the charges framed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petition was allowed on 3.6.1992 and First Information Report qua the petitioners along with report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and charges framed thereon, were quashed.

4. Feeling aggrieved, complainant took the matter to Supreme Court in an appeal and the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.5.1994, allowed the same, thereby remanding the case to this Court for decision.

Mr. S.C. Mohuhta, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, has contended that on reading of the First I