The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and credible allegations in dowry harassment cases, and the court's authority to quash FIRs based on vague and improbable accusations.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J. - Vide this order I shall be disposing of two criminal misc. applications No. 27044-M of 2001, Anita and others v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc. No. 34412-M of 2001, Lal Chand Thapar and others v. State of Punjab, as both are arising out of one and the same FIR No. 32 dated 2.2.2001 under Sections 406/498-A Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

2. There are seven petitioners in the above said two petitions and they are seeking the quashing of the FIR Annexure P/1 on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in this case by Monika alias Monu.

3. Anita, Reeta and Lalita, the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No. 27044-M of 2001 and Amrita in Criminal Misc. No. 34412-M of 2001 are unmarried sisters-in-law of the complainant. Ravinder alias Rinku petitioner in Criminal Misc No. 34412-M of 2001 is unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (parents-in-law) in Criminal Misc. No. 34412-M of 2001 and the petition qua them is hereby dismissed being not pressed. We are now left with four unmarried sisters-in-law and one unmarried brother-in-law.

5. Mrs. Mann, the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the FIR Annexure P/1 and submitted that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. She contends that the marriage between the complainant and Davinder Thapar non-applicant took place in the year 1993 and the petitioners are now being booked after seven years. The learned counsel further contends that the complainant after the marriage had started living with her husband Davinder Thapar at Assam in district Dibrugarh where he was a contractor and running a firm in the name of M/s Balmiki Enterprise. It is then contended that even from the perusal of the FIR no specific allegation against the present petitioners has been levelled so far as the harassment or demand of dowry is concerned and they have been involved in this case by the complainant in order to harass them.

6. The next contention is that there is no specific enrustment of dowry to any of the petitioners and as such section 406 Indian Penal Code is also not prima facie made out. Developing her arguments, the learned counsel further contended that in fact the complainant had left her matrimonial home on her own and thereafter her husband Davinder Thapar was constrained to file a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 20.11.2000 and the present FIR has been lodged subsequently as a counter blast in which all the family members including the present petitioners who are unmarried sisters and brother of the husband have also been booked. The present FIR qua the present petitioners, thus, is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

7. In support of her submissions, Mrs. Mann has relied upon Kiran v. State of Haryana, Raj Pal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 135, Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 394, Mukesh Rani v. State of Haryana, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 163 and Kulwinder and others v. Asha Rani, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 358.

8. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel assisted by Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the complainant has refuted the arguments saying that prima facie the allegations against the present petitioners constitute both the offences viz Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code as they had been harassing the complainant right from the outset of the marriage and both the petitions deserve dismissal.

9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the present FIR Annexure P/1 qua the five petitioners namely Anita, Reeta, Lalita, Amrita and Ravinder alias Rinku is liable to be quashed.

10. Admittedly, Anita, Reeta, Lalita, Amrita are unmarried sisters-in-law and Ravinder alias Rinku is unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant. I h