The court held that vague allegations regarding entrustment of property do not warrant quashing of an FIR, especially when there are specific allegations of maltreatment and expulsion from the matrimonial home.

J. S. Sekhon J.

1. Through this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners seek the quashment of F. I. R. No.278 of 26/9/1989 for offences under sections 498-A, 323, 506,406 read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kalanwal, District Sirsa, mainly on the grounds of vagueness of the allegations there in regarding entrustment of property and maltreatment.

2. The brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the First Information Report is that the marriage of Sham Murari, co-accused of the petitioner, resident of Mansa Mandi was performed according to hindu religious rites with Smt. Murti Devi complainant about 12 years ago. Ram Pal alias Ram Lal is younger brother of aforesaid Sham Murari while Dwarki Devi is his mother. The petitioners being not satisfied with the dowry, started maltreating Murti Devi complainant and asked her to fetch Rs.15,000.00 more by way of dowry. The complainant expressed her inability due to poverty of her parents, which resulted in giving her severe beating all these accused persons on 7.4.1989 and turning her out of the in laws house. Madan Lal, brother of the complainant, however, got the matter settled through the intervention of the police as the husband of the petitioner had undertaken to treat her nicely, but again all the accused started maltreating and taunting the complainant. She continued tolerating it due to her helplessness. The accused thereafter put up another demand of Rs.15,000.00 . Ultimately the brother of the complainant gave two gold bangles of his wife and Rs.5000.00 to all these three accused-persons on the undertaking that they will treat her nicely. But ten days thereafter all the accused again started demanding another Rs.10,000.00 . On the complainants failure to fulfil their demand, all the accused-persons turned her out of the house on the morning of 5.6.1989, after giving her slaps, fists and kick blows. The brother and other relations of the complainant tried to persuade the accused-persons to rehabilitate the complainant but they refused to keep her unless they paid Rs.10,000.00 . Under these circumstances, the brother of the complainant had no alternative but to take her to his house in Kalanwali. A day before lodging this report, the brothers of the complainant along with other respectable again tried to persuade the accused to rehabilitate the complainant and offered to give Rs.5000.00 but the accused remained adamant that they will do so on getting Rs.10,000.00 . It is further averred that certain articles given in dowry were misappropriated by the petitioners i. e. , her mother-in-law and her husbands younger brother. Earlier, the complainant had also filed civil suit for maintenance in Court but it ended in a compromise after the husband had tendered an unqualified apology.

3. In this petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the First Information Report inter alia, on the ground that they are residing separately from Sham Murari, husband of the complainant, and a notice of this fact was got published on 11.7.1987 in Daily Newspaper Jagwani Jullundur. It is also averred that the allegations regarding entrustment of the property are vague and that Smt. Dwarka Devi did not accompany the marriage party of Sham Murari and that there was no entrustment of the property to her. It was also maintained that the entire incident took: place at Mansa. The police of Police Station Kalanwali in District Sirsa of Haryana State had no jurisdiction to register or investigate the case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Admittedly, the case is still under investigation and the relations between the parties got strained on account of the complainant having brought less dowry on the occasion of her marriage which took place 12 years prior to the registration of the case, i. e. , somewhere in the year 1977. Under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that