JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.377 dated 09.10.2014 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In brief, the facts are that respondent No.2 registered the FIR (supra) against the petitioners herein, who was married to Sushil Kumar son of petitioners No.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 alleging therein that out of her wedlock with Sushil Kumar, a female child was born. After three months of marriage, accused started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and for not giving a car in the marriage. When she was not able to fulfill their demands, petitioners had thrown her out of the matrimonial house on 13.04.2014. She made a phone call to the police control room and in front of police officials, her maternal uncle told that they will settle the matter amicably. Thereafter, her maternal uncle brought her to his house where she stayed overnight and next morning, she was sent back to her matrimonial house by saying that the matter will be settled amicably in the presence of her parents. But neither her parents were called nor the matter was settled, rather they arranged a rented accommodation on the pretext of getting the house repaired whereas they have two other houses as well. Petitioners also brought her to court complex a number of times after giving her beatings and obtained her signature on fake affidavits. In August, she came to her paternal home to celebrate rakhi festival and during said period, petitioners in connivance with each other sent her husband abroad and when she called her husband, his phone came to be switched off. On asking about her husband, petitioners informed her that her husband will come back soon. Thereafter, she stayed at her matrimonial home for two months. She received a number of calls from her husband, who assured her to come back and told her to get admitted their daughter in a reputed school and also sent money for expenses of the daughter. It was also alleged that her daughter went to meet her grandmother after giving her final exams in March, 2011 and since then, she was not allowed to meet her daughter.

5. During the pendency of the instant petition, petitioner No.1 has expired and the cause of action survives only qua petitioners No.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. In the FIR (supra), after conducting a thorough investigation, the police found petitioners innocent and put them in column No.2 and the challan was presented only against Sushil Kumar husband of respondent No.2. However, vide impugned order dated 23.01.2017, petitioners have been summoned to face trial as additional accused on the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution. It is further contended that after few months of marriage, respondent No.2 along with her husband started demanding their share and Rs.5 lakhs to start their own business and since respondent No.2 along with her husband was creating ruckus every day, petitioners gave Rs.1.5 lakhs to respondent No.2. After taking money, respondent No.2 along with her husband left the house of petitioners on 09.01.2009 and started living in a rented accommodation at House No.3407, Gurucharan Park, New Model Town, Ludhiana and therefore, the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 in the FIR (supra), which was registered on 09.10.2014 of giving beatings to her for demand of dowry are totally frivolous. The allegations levelled in the FIR are vague and omnibus as there are no details of date, time and place of alleged incident of demanding dowry. Furthermore, petitioners No.1 and 2 have already disowned their son and respondent No.2 from their movable and immovable properties. In this regard, reliance is placed upon