The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of criminal proceedings against minors, without specific allegations of demanding dowry or harassment, constitutes an abuse of the process of court.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Bhupinder Kaur, Roop Singh and Pardeep Kaur, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively, of Smt. Ranjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant-wife) have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 9.8.1997, registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Indian Penal Code).

2. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint made by the complainant-wife, who was married to Jaswant Singh son of Bhupinder Kaur petitioner No. 1 in the year 1994. The aforementioned FIR was registered against Jaswant Singh, Amarjit Singh, Bhupinder Kaur, Harbans Singh and Pardeep Kaur, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-wife. However, the name of Roop Singh does not find mention in the said FIR, though he is also apprehending his implication in this case. The aforesaid persons, who have been arrayed as accused, consist the entire family of Amarjit Singh. However, the present petition has been filed only by three persons, named above.

3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the marriage between Jaswant Singh and the complainant-wife took place on 13.7.1994. At that time, many articles of gifts and dowry, which constitute Istri Dhan of the complainant-wife, were given and handed over to the accused persons mentioned in the FIR. A few days after the marriage, parents-in-law of the complainant-wife and other relations of her husband started finding fault with the quality of dowry articles and insufficiency in the same. A motor cycle or in lieu thereof an amount of Rs. 35,000/- in cash was demanded, which was received by accused Amarjit Singh. A demand was also raised for a Maruti car. When the demand of dowry was not met, the complainant-wife was then maltreated and given beatings by the accused persons. She was turned out of matrimonial house in three clothes in December, 1994. Since her parents were living in Canada, therefore, she was compelled to live in her brothers house and when they came back from Canada, they requested her in-laws to keep her in the matrimonial house. By that time, her husband had also gone out of India. The accused have not allowed the complainant-wife to use her Istri Dhan. They have committed an offence of demanding more dowry by giving her severe beatings and maltreating her, therefore, an action was sought to be taken against them.

4. The petitioners in the instant petition are seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR on the grounds that earlier to the present case, the complainant-wife made a similar complaint on 1.8.1997 before SHO, Police Station Payal, which was found to be false. The allegations made in the present FIR and in the previous complaint are contradictory. Actually, all the allegations made in the FIR are false and fabricated one and the entire family has been roped in by the complainant-wife with intention to put pressure on her husband Jaswant Singh to take her back with him to abroad. It has been alleged that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were minors at the time of registration of the present FIR. No specific allegation has been levelled against any accused, which constitute an offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. Petitioners No. 2 and 3, who are minors, have been falsely implicated in the present case. No specific role has been attributed to them.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Harsh Vardhan Arora v. Smt. Kavita Arora, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 499, Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Sunil Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Police, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 267.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that no ground for quashing of FIR is made out in the present case and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard t