IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-02.2.2026 Date of Decision: 11.2.2026 Gian Chand and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

1 The date when the judgment is reserved 02.2.2026

2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.02.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 11.02.2026

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full N.A.

judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Argued by: Mr. Ajay Malvia, Advocate, Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Pratik Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 96/2023 dated 18.11.2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Shahpur Kandi, District Pathankot and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Factual matrix

2. The facts in brief, are that the marriage between the son of the petitioners, namely Sanjeev Kumar and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 12.12.2006, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Pathankot. Out of the wedlock, a child namely Sambhav, was born on 20.8.2008. Subsequently, a matrimonial dispute ensued between the parties, leading to the registration of the present FIR by respondent No. 2, levelling allegations of harassment, beatings, maltreatment on account of demand of dowry and misapporpriation of the dowry articles. It has been alleged therein that the husband of respondent No. 2, on the instigation of the present petitioners, harassed her in their matrimonial home in Oman and thereafter in Australia. Furthermore, on 04.10.2022, when respondent No. 2 along with her mother went to her matrimonial home, both the petitioners caught hold respondent No. 2 from her hair, and allegedly assaulted her. Petitioner No. 2 also threatened the mother of respondent No. 2 that they will not allow her to come in the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that when respondent No. 2 demanded her istri dhan, both the petitioners openly refused to return the same. The petitioners are also alleged to have threatened respondent No. 2 and her mother that in case respondent No. 2 comes to the matrimonial home, they will implicate them in a criminal case of house trespassing.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners are the parents-in-law of respondent No. 2, and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Both the petitioners, who are aged 76 and 70 I attest to the accuracy yanedars, respectively, have been suffering from critical ailments. It is submitted that after the solemnization of marriage between their son and respondent No. 2 in the year 2006, the couple moved to Oman in February 2007. Out of the said wedlock, one son namely Sambhav was born in Oman in August 20, 2008. Subsequently, on 31.1.2017, the couple with their son left Oman to relocate to Australia, after spending time in India from Ist February to 21^st April, and during the said period respondent No. 2 mainly stayed at her parental home in Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, in April, 2017, they moved to Australia on a permanent resident visa. It is further submitted that in September 2019, they travelled to India for the wedding of the brother of respondent No. 2 and returned to Australia in October 2019. In November 2020, respondent No. 2 travelled to India alone and stayed at her parental home at Deoli, Himachal Pradesh. It is also submitted that on 27.11.2020, the sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 consumed poison due to some dispute inter se respondent No. 2 and her younger brother, and after 3-4 days, her sister-in-law passed away. In early December 2020, respondent No. 2 went to her matrimonia