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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
Virendra Chaudhary & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 14448 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, Assistant A.G. Haryana.
Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2/complainant.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners challenged the FIR registered against them for dowry demands and maltreatment, with one petitioner withdrawing the petition - Petitioner's husband allegedly demanded a diesel car; allegations of physical and mental cruelty raised - Court found specific serious allegations against two petitioners, while the other two were deemed to have vague and general allegations, leading to quashing of FIR against them. (Paras 3, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The complainant filed an FIR alleging dowry demands and maltreatment by her husband and in-laws after a marriage with significant expenses involved (Rs. 45,82,000). Allegations included demands for a diesel car and physical harassment during pregnancy. The petitioners challenged the credibility of these claims, asserting they were false and filed in retaliation to a divorce petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the allegations against two petitioners regarding maltreatment and dowry, while it determined the allegations against the other two were insufficient to proceed with charges.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the allegations in the FIR warranted quashing, focusing on the credibility of the claims against each petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that specific serious allegations justify proceeding with the case, while vague allegations do not hold sufficient grounds for prosecution.

Result: The petition regarding petitioners 2 and 3 was declined; however, the FIR was quashed concerning petitioners 4 and 5.

Table of Content
1. details of allegations in the matrimonial dispute. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments for and against the quashing of fir. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis of the evidence and decision on allegations. (Para 6)
4. conclusion on the merits of the petition. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Amarjot Bhatti, J. (Oral)

Petitioners - Virendra Chaudhary, Bhagwan Singh, Pushpa Devi, Mayank Singh and Ram Babu Singh have filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 28.02.2020, registered under Sections 323 , 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC at Police Station Women West, Gurugram, District Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners by giving statement in the Court withdrew the present quashing petition qua Virendra Chaudhary - petitioner no. 1.

3. The facts of the case are that Manali Gawer - complainant filed written complaint against her husband Virendra Chaudhary, father-in-law Bhagwan Singh, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi, brother-in-law Mayank Singh and maternal uncle of her husband namely Ram Babu Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that she got married with Virendra Chaudhary on 24.04.2012. Prior to marriage, roka ceremony took place on 12.02.2012. Pre-marriage functions took place prior to wedding on 24.04.2012. The complainant has given the detail of gifts given during various ceremonies and the amount which was spent at the time of marriage. Before marriage ceremony, the mother-in-law and her husband had sent a list of items in which a Honda City car of diesel was specifically demanded. The father of the complainant in order to fulfill their demand gave gold ornaments, clothes, gifts, steel utensils, TV, AC etc. The total expenditure on wedding is mentioned as Rs. 45,82,000/-. After marriage, she was taken to the house of her husband i.e. House No. 56, Mayur Vihar, Dhauli Pyau, Mathura, U.P. Her husband started shouting on her for giving Honda City car in petrol and not in diesel. He further shouted that her family could not give two gold sets to his mother and sister-in-law. After marriage, she was taken to Bangalore where her husband was working. Even there, she was maltreated and threatened for their aforesaid demand. During this period, she became pregnant and her husband wanted to abort the child to which she refused. She was physically harassed. Her husband was transferred to Gurgaon. On 16.04.2013, due to her health condition, she was taken to Apollo Hospital, Delhi and where the abortion was done on 17.04.2013. She got pregnant for the second time. The mother and father of the husband insisted that she should tell her father to give a diesel car and gold jewellery and in case their demand was not fulfilled, she will be sent to Mayur Vihar residence, where she will have to stay alone. Ultimately, she told her father about their demands. The father of the complainant had a talk with her husband and explained that he was not in a position to give a new car. She was brought to Mayur Vihar residence where she was left with his parents. Earlier, she was getting treatment from Max Hospital, Gurugram. She was ill treated during her pregnancy. When her condition deteriorated, she was taken to Mehta Nursing Home, Mathura and at the insistence of doctor, she was again taken to Max Hospital. She delivered a male child on 07.01.2015. Her husband left her alone in the hospital on 09.01.2015 and ultimately, the entire expenditure was borne by her father and brother. After about 26 days, she was again taken back to matrimonial home. On reaching there, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Ram Babu Singh started shouting on her. They insisted on their previous demands. Ram Babu Singh threatened to kill her. The complainant objected to the behaviour of the uncle of her husband. On this, she was locked in a room along with her child. Her husband started living in Gurgaon. Her brother-in-law also taunted her for bringing less dowry. The husband of the complainant visited Mathura once or twice in a mo

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