Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maninder Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 9 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: II(1993)DMC605
JUDGMENT Jai Singh Sekhon, J.
1. In the F.I R. Annexure P/1 lodged by Kirpal Singh Sethi, father of Ms. Surjit Kaur, it is maintained that he married his daughter with Maninder Singh on 13th of December 1987 and as per family custom, dowry articles were entrusted to Shri Gobind Singh, father-in-law, Maninder Singh, husband, Surjit Kaur, mother-in-Jaw and Balwinder Singh. brother-in-law, and her sister-in-law Satinder Kaur and that they being not satisfied with the dowry, started maltreating Ms. Surjit Kaur. Surjit Kaur was mercilessly beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. No specific details of these entrustment of the articles of dowry are mentioned there. The date and time of the year of the alleged beating is also conspicuously missing from the F.I.R. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents that even in the statement of Ms. Surjit Kaur recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. she had not stated specifically about the date, time and place on which she was allegedly beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
2. It is not disputed that the parties have effected compromise as embodied in Annexure P/3 dated 18.4.1989 and on the basis, the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala had granted a decree of divorce o" 30.9.1989.
3. In view of the vagueness of the allegation regarding entrustmeat of dowry articles and the alleged mal-treating, the continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the above referred F.I.R. would certainly amount to abuse of the process of Court.
4. The observations of this Court in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989 (1) Recent C.R. 278 as well as of another Single Bench in Bal Kishan and Ors. v. Poonam Verma, 1987 (1) Recent C R. 657 can be referred in this regard.
5. In those cases proceedings under Sections 405, 406 and 498A were quashed on the ground of vagueness of allegations of entrustment of dowry and the alleged mal-treatment etc. In the case in hand also, there is no evidence as to which article was entrusted to which of the Accused-Petitioners.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the F.I.R. Annexure P/1 is ordered to be quashed by accepting this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.