Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

wife medically checked, summoned all the petitioners. Since on 7.10.2014, petitioner-husband refused to arrive at amicable settlement, if any, with respondent-wife, .

respondent-wife lodged complaint, dated 7.10.2014 and got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein ill treatment given by the petitioner-husband after marriage. She alleged in FIR that after solemnization of her marriage with petitioner-husband, she was repeatedly subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioners, while she was living with them in her matrimonial home at Jallandhar.

He further argued that though in the FIR, respondent-wife, has alleged that she was repeatedly teased on account of less dowry brought by her, but there is nothing on record that she was subjected to cruelty as defined by Section 498-A of IPC by the petitioners.

.

6. Lastly, Mr.Sharma, while making this Court to peruse contents of FIR, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that no incident of beatings or maltreatment took place at Nalagarh, rather all alleged incidents, if are presumed to be correct, happened at Jallandhar prior to lodging of FIR at Nalagarh. Mr.Sharma further submitted that there is no explanation available on record that why respondent-wife forgot to mention about alleged hurling of abuses and extension of threats by the petitioners on 26.8.2014 at Nalagarh, while getting her first statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR No.224 came to be registered against the petitioners. Mr.Sharma, while referring to the supplementary statement recorded by Police after lodging of FIR, contended that Police at Nalagarh is hand-in-glove with respondent-

Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 325 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the petitioners.

8. While referring to the allegations contained in FIR., Mr.Ramakant Sharma argued that though initial statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which formal FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners, itself reveals the commission of offence at Nalagarh, but even otherwise supplementary statement recorded on the same day clearly suggests that petitioners not only hurled abuses to the respondent-wife at Nalagarh, rather, while leaving her house, they extended threats to do away with her life and, as such, FIR rightly came to be lodged at Police Station Nalaglarh.

Singh, mother-in-law Ranjit Kaur and Devar (brother-in-law) Gaurav visited her parental house at Nalagarh and asked her to resolve the matter amicably by way of compromise, but, when she told them that she has filed complaint before the police, they got adamant and started hurling abuses on her and also extended threats to her to do away with her life.

But, now question, which remains to be adjudicated, is whether allegations contained in supplementary statement of respondent-wife, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., can be read in continuation to FIR dated 7.10.2014. Admittedly respondent-wife in her initial statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. chose not to allege that on 26.8.2014, her husband Akashdeep Singh, father-in-law Yadwinder Singh, mother-in-