210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14802-2022 Date of Decision:- 08.10.2025 Manisha ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.(Oral)

Petitioner Manisha has filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, Haryana vide which petitioner was summoned to face trial by allowing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 79 dated 07.12.2017 under Section 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station-Women Police Station, District Fatehabad and all proceedings arising therefrom or any other relief or direction which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of case.

2. As per facts narrated in FIR No. 79 dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) (supra), complainant Anamika filed written complaint against Harish Kumar-husband, Veena Devi-mother-in-law, Manish- brother-in-law, Amandeep-wife of Manish (brother-in-law) and Manisha (sister-in-law) with allegations of maltreatment on account of demand of dowry and for misappropriation of her dowry articles. In FIR, complainant has alleged that her marriage was performed with Harish Kumar on ₹

03.09.2016. Her parents had given dowry by spending about 10 lacs on marriage. She has given detail of dowry articles given at the time of marriage. She claimed that after two days of her marriage, she alongwith her husband and members of in-laws family visited her parental house, where her in-laws complained for giving less dowry and expected atleast a ₹

car or cash of 2 lacs for educated and working son-in-law. It is further alleged that there was demand for gold ornaments for aforesaid family members of her husband. She was taken back in matrimonial home. After three days of her marriage, her father-in-law was admitted in hospital as he was suffering from Cancer and with a gap of about 15 days he passed away. She claimed that when she got sick, she was not provided medical treatment by her husband. She got herself transferred to Noida on 29.10.2016. Prior to this, she was working in a bank at Fatehabad and used to travel back to her matrimonial home at Sirsa. During her stay at Noida, brother-in-law and sister-in-law also started residing with them. They interfered in their privacy. Whenever she protested, she was given beating by her husband. Complainant levelled allegations against her husband that he was interested in some other girl and he did not like her. Her brother-in- law and sister-in-law used to instigate her husband and always blamed her. Her brother-in-law got transferred to Bangalore, whereas, sister-in-law stayed at Noida. She again levelled allegations against her husband for having extramarital affair. She was left in her parental house on 02.04.2017. Due to matrimonial dispute Panchayat was also convened to resolve the matter, but nobody came to take her back. Accused No.

1/husband brought all her dowry articles to Sirsa. She was not treated well in matrimonial home. Finally she was turned out of the matrimonial home and her husband dropped her at Bhoona road late at night, from where she came to her house at Bhirdana. Finally, present FIR was registered.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented only against Harish Kumar-husband, whereas, other accused were kept in Column No. 2 of challan report. During pendency of trial, respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) for summoning of additional accused including present petitioner. Application was contested by Harish Kumar accused by filing reply (Annexure P-3). Said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was declined vide order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-4). On this, respondent No. 2/complainant filed criminal revision (Annexure P-5) against said order dated