Ashutosh & Ors v. Jyoti & Ors

ORDER o

17.ll.20ll Crl. M.A. No. 17953/2011 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M.A. No. L7954120LL (Delav) For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 15 days in filing the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. w.P. (crl.) 157412011 & Cri. M.A. No. 1795212011 (Stav) 'By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. I72l20Il W.P.(CRL) 1574/2011 Page I of 4 under Section 498N406IPC registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar. .Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the FIR in question is full of contradictions. The averments made therein are false. The Complainant as per her own statement made to the police of PS Mukherjee Nagar had voluntarity left the matrimonial house on 10th September,2010 and thus there was no coercion on her to leave the house. During mediation the Complainant stated that she wanted a divorce and a hefty alimony. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The allegations levelled in the FIR are that the Complainant was married on 27 'h November, 2009 with Petitioner No. 1. Even prior to the marriage the Petitioners demanded a car from her brothers and the mediator which was agreed to be given as dowry. During marriage gifts and gold jewellary were given to the in-laws. On the same day after the marriage the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law opened her suitcases and took all the expensive clothes and her jewellary and kept the same in their custody. Even the bangles were kept in their custody on the pretext that they will be lost. Despite her family having spent lot of money on the marriage the in-laws were not satisfied and demanded a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Complainant and her family members. Consequently the sister-in-law of the 4/ Complainant giving a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Petitioner No. 1 on 6th February, 2009. Despite havingpaid a sum of Rs.2lakhs, the Petitioners were not satisfied. As the balance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was not received, they continued misbehaving. On 2l 't February,2010 when the Complainant demanded her jewellary back, her mother in law flatly refused to give back the same. The Complainant was severely beaten due to which the mother of the Complainant had to send a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 14th March, 2010 through her brother. Again there was a fight on 20th March, 2010 followed by a demand of 200 sq. yards plot instead of the car amount. On 3 'd July, 2010 the Petitioner No. 1 drank liquor and on the provocation of the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law beat the complainant mercilessly. The demand of dowry by the Petitioners did not end and there was continuous harassment of the Complainant. Ultimately the Complainant left the mbtrimonial home on 10 'h September,2010 at 8.00 a.m. A perusal of the FIR prima facie shows that prima facie the ingredients of Section 498N406 are made out against the Petitioners. .At this stage this Court will not enter into the realm of appreciation of evidence and adjudicate whether the allegations are false or not. Further the effect of the contradiction in the complaint that the Petitioners asked for a plot in Haridwar or at Burari will be an issue to be decided during the course of the Trial. The present case does not fall within the ambit of any of the categories laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 6upl) I SCC 335,warcanting quashing of the FIR. Petition and application are dismissed. IM 'f7">- , MUKTA GUPTA, J. NOVEMBER t7,20ll tvnt

88# $: * IN THE HIGH COI]RT + w.P.(cRL) rs74t20rL ASHUTOSH & ORS. Through: VETSUS JYOTI & ORS. OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioners Ms. Prachi Singh, Ms. Geetika Sharma and Xdr. V.K. Singh, Advocates. CORAM: ..,.. Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Advocate for Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel with ASI Ram Gopal, PS Mukherjee Nagar. VIr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. HON 'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA