SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 381

2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann
Crl. Misc. No. 33057-M of 2006
Kapil Gautam
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 08/03/2007}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Y.P. Malik, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty to wife--No specific averment made qua any overt act by father and mother-in-law--FIR qua them quahsed.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482—Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498-A, 406 323 and 506—Quashing of FIR—Cruelty to wife--Allegations of beatings in the FIR—No medical evidence brought on record—Complainant was living with her husband in a rented accommodation--Highly improbable that present petitioners could give any beating to her—Mis-appropriation of dowry articles did not mention in the complaint—Only general and vague allegations against the petitioner—No specific averment made qua any overt act—Petitioners found innocent by the police—FIR qua father-in-law and mother-in-law quashed. (Para 6 to 8)

       

JUDGMENT

T.P.S. Mann. J.:-The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 193 dated 29.12.2004 registered at Police Station Pinjore for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC and for setting aside of the proceedings taken thereunder.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Smt. Renu Gautam respondent to the police. She stated therein that she was married to Kapil Gautam petitioner on 6.2.2003 at Pinjore. Her father had given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage. Her husband Kapil Gautam, father-in-law Krishan Pal Gautam, mother-in-law Preet Pritam, sister-in-law Anita and sister-in-Iaw’s husband Rakesh were not satisfied with the same and started humiliating her soon after the marriage, besides demanding money for performing marriage of Savita, sister of her husband. When she expressed her inability to do so on account of the fact that her father had taken loans from various persons and the department for performing her marriage, the accused started fighting with her, besides abusing her on various occasions. She did not tell all those things to her parents fearing that they would feel disturbed. Afterwards the accused started beating her which fact she told to her father, who came to her matrimonial home and gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- to her husband. Inspite of that the accused were not satisfied. They raised demand for a motor-cycle besides Rs.70,000/-from her father so that her husband could start some business. When her father refused to fulfill the said demand, the accused left her at her parental place. When her father talked to her in-laws, they again raised the demand as mentioned above. Finally in the month of December 2003, the matter was compromised at the intervention of the Panchayat in which the accused felt sorry and took her back to the matrimonial home. However, she was in for shock when the accused again started torturing and humiliating her. At one point of time, her mother-in-law and her husband tried to set her on fire, while she was working in the kitchen. Although, she was pregnant but she was not given proper diet to eat. She and her husband started living in a separate rented accommodation but there also she was given beatings by her husband on the instigation of her father-in-law. The other accused, who were residing nearby, often visited her place and had been repeating their demand for dowry. Ultimately, in the month of 2004, on account of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused, she had to be admitted in the hospital. During her hospitalisation, she underwent mis-carriage also. All the expenditure on her treatment was met out by her parents. Even her husband thereafter did not come back to the house nor paid the rent to the landlord. She had no other option but to vacate the rented accommodation and while doing so, she took all her articles and shifted to her parental place. With these allegations, the aforementioned FIR was registered.

3. After the registration of FIR and conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented only against the present petitioners, whereas Anita and Rakesh were found innocent. Charges have already been framed against the petitioners, however, no witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. The case is stated to be fixed before the trial Court for the recording of prosecution evidence for 12.3.2007.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition qua Kapil Gautam petitioner and prays for withdrawing the same with liberty to his said client to take all the pleas available to him at the appropriate stage.

Ordered accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for Krishan Pal Gautam and Smt. Pritamvati @ Preet Pritam petitioners submitted that though the said petitioners have been summoned for an offence under Section 323 IPC yet there was no medical evidence brought on the record by the complainant. No offence under Section 406 IPC was made out as it was the st







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top