Ramji Lal Goel And Ors. vs State And Anr.
1993 Latest Caselaw 49 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) seeks quashing of an Fir No. 104/90under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi on 27.3.90 against the petitioners.

(2) I have beard learned Counsel for the parties.The case of the prosecution appearing from the statement of Smt.Shanti Goel is that she was married to the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4 on 12.5.1989. After only one month of marriage the in-laws started mal-treating her for bringing less dowry and everyday their cruel treatment towards her was increasing. Her father gave dowry articles according to his capacity but now he was hopeless to fulfilll their demands because he was a retired Govt, Servant. She further said that herein-laws give beating to her and use filthy language saying that she must bringmoney, whether from her parents or even by prostitution. She further mentioned in the Fir that her life and that of her parents was in danger.Her husband dropped her at her parents house only a day before the recording of the Fir and asked her to bring Rs. 25,000.00. She visited matrimonial home in the morning of 27.3.1990 i.e., the day on which she recorded this FIR to collect her clothes. But the husband refused to give clothes to her and said that he will see her. She also named all the four petitioners who threatened her and used abusive language towards her.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there are simply vague allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the Fir did not disclose any good case against the petitioners which could end in theirconviction. He has drawn my attention to some authorities. The first case is that of Jatinder Kumar and others v. State (Delhi Administration). 1992Criminal Law Journal, 1482 and the second case is of Dr. Vinod Kumar Goyal and others v. Union Territory and others. 1991 Criminal Law Journal, 2333. I have gone through these authorities. In the first case there was only the statement of the father of the deceased under Section 161 of the Code to theeffect that the behavior of the sister of the accused was bad. Except thatstatement, there was no other material shown to the Court against the two girls who were the sisters-in-law of the deceased. But in the present case before me, there are specific allegations made by the wife that the petitioners asked her to bring Rs. 25,000.00 from her parents or if that was not possible,by prostitution. This allegation, if true, is very serious and I am of the opinion that if the complainant-wife is able to prove that such a demand was made from her by the petitioners, the case against them may be covered under Section 498A IPC. In the second case also it was found that there were vague allegations against the relatives of the husband and that is why the Fir qua them was quashed.

(4) Moreover, it may also be noted that the charge against the petitioners in this case was framed on 25.5.1992. Petitioners did not file any revision petition against the charge.

(5) I am, therefore, of the view that this revision under Section 482 of the Code has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.