The court emphasized the need for clear supporting material to proceed against relatives of a husband in cases of matrimonial disputes and highlighted the non-compliance of Section 188 Cr.P.C. in prosecuting a citizen and resident of Australia.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.35 dated 29.03.2012 registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that a marriage was solemnized between the brother of the petitioner and Rajbir Kaur on 21.03.2007 according to Sikh religious rites. The present FIR was got registered on 29.03.2012 against the petitioner and his family members by respondent No.2 for harassment, demand of dowry and beatings in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has an evil eye against her and taunted her for not giving enough to him in the marriage and also instigated other family members against respondent No.2. It is further alleged that a demand of Sakoda car and Rs.20,00,000/- was also made to respondent No.2 and for not fulfilling the said demand she was harassed and tortured by inlaws family.

3. Mr. A.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid FIR which is registered, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law with an attempt to harass the family members of the husband of the complainant who is already facing trial. It is argued that the petitioner herein is an Australian citizen and has been residing in Australia much prior in time to the wedding having been solemnized between the parties. It is also argued that the complainant has initiated proceedings under the Domestic and Family Protection Act, 1989 in Australia against her husband and eventually had also got a protection order against him and therefore, the petitioner herein has been roped in only on account of the fact that he is closely related to the complainant's husband. It is also argued that subsequent to proceedings under the Domestic and Family Violence Act, the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce.

4. Reply to the instant petition has been filed by the respondent-State. Mr. S.K. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Ms. Rajni Gupta, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab argued that there are serious allegations leveled in the FIR that had been registered. It is argued that the challan has already been presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner, who had earlier been declared as a P.O. is already facing trial. It is argued that there are specific allegations in the said FIR regarding harassment meted out by the complainant-respondent No.2 herein and therefore, there is no ground made out for quashing of the said FIR.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings of the case.

6. Admittedly a marriage took place between the brother of the petitioner and the complainant in the year 2007. After marriage, the parties resided together for a short duration in Australia and while residing there, the complainant had made a complaint under the Domestic and Family Violence Act against her husband in Australia.

7. A reading of the FIR would reflect that there is an allegation of giving gold ring worth 3 tolas to the petitioner herein at the time of the marriage, with a further allegation that the petitioner had an evil eye upon the complainant and it is he who instigated the in-laws of the complainant against her on the ground that insufficient dowry had been given. Thereafter, there are general allegations that have been set out that the complainant had been harassed on the ground of not meeting the demand of dowry i.e. bringing a Sakoda car to the matrimonial home. It is further contended that she came to India to attend an engagement ceremony of her brother-in-law namely the petitioner as well as to attend the wedding ceremony and at both times she was subjected to a demand of dowry and threats that in case the said demand was not fulfilled she would be eliminated. Though there is an allegation made out in the F