IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 14.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 SHARDA SINGH AND ANOTHER …Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal ***

Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana.

None for respondent No. 2.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 230 dated 27.10.2016 under Sections 498-A/406/323/34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Women Gurugram, District Gurugram, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the challan under Sections 323, 406, 498-A IPC, as well as order framing charge dated

05.06.2017.

The facts, necessary for disposal of the petition are that respondent No. 2-Shalini Singh, complainant in the FIR, was married with Arvind Partap Singh, son of the petitioners on 29.01.2015 at Lukhnow. She got the FIR registered on 27.10.2016, alleging that her father K.V. Singh had given sufficient dowry, beyond his means, including Rs. 5,00,000/- cash and articles worth Rs. 3,00,000/-, besides jewellery etc., yet her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given and taunted her from the very day of marriage for bringing insufficient dowry. Her mother-in-law Sharda Singh, sister-in- law Kusum Mal and sister-in-law’s husband Naveen Mal instigated her husband Arvind Partap Singh against her and got her thrashed. Her father-in- law Raj Kumar Singh taunted her and her parents with regard to fare of bus. Her husband did not give her money for maintenance and thrashed her on the asking of her in-laws. He pressurized her every month to ask her father for his monthly pension and when she refused, she used to be beaten up. Regularly after the marriage, every month she used to bring Rs. 1,45,000/-, her father’s salary. Though her in-laws did not reside with her, yet her husband, on their instigation, used to ask her to bring money. In May 2015, her husband took up a job in Snapdeal and they purchased a house on December, 2015 in DLF, New Town Heights. Even after purchase of the house, her husband tortured her and repeatedly thrashed her. In March, 2016, when she became pregnant, her husband asked her to abort the child and on her refusal, she was beaten up. On 03.10.2016, her husband quarreled with her and thrashed her in connection with demands for dowry. When she spoke about calling the police, he ran away after breaking the bathroom window.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners were parents-in-law of respondent No. 2, who got FIR No.28/2016 registered against them, after death of their son Arvind Partap Singh. Throughout, from the very beginning of marriage, petitioners had been residing separately in Uttarakhana and had never lived in the matrimonial home. It was urged that there was no specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR regarding any cruelty and no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against them. Similarly, no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out as there was no allegation of entrustment of any dowry article to them. All allegations of beatings and torture were against the deceased husband of the complainant, who committed suicide on 09.10.2016 by jumping from Laxman Jhula in Haridwar. Learned counsel submitted that an FIR under Section 302 IPC was initially registered against the complainant with regard to murder of petitioners’ son, though, later on the FIR was cancelled. Besides petitioners, their daughter and son-in-law were also named in the FIR but were subsequently found innocent by the Investigating Agency and challan was presented only against the petitioners. It was urged that petitioners could not be forced to face criminal trial on the vague and general allegations levelled in the FIR, which was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, intended to harass the family members of the husband, who had died before registration of the FIR a