SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suresh Kumar Kamboj And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 13 March, 2020


Date of decision: 13.03.2020





Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, and
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.


The petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-

in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani), have filed the present petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.199 dated 15.05.2018

registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B of IPC at

Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of

respondent No.2-Nitu Kamboj whose marriage was solemnized with Varun

Kamboj (i.e. son of petitioners No.1 and 2) on 02.12.2008. As per the FIR,

in the marriage, the parents of the complainant had incurred expenditure

1 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:03 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -2-

more than their status and had given gold jewellery and other dowry items to

the accused as istridhan. However, after the marriage, the complainant

started living in the matrimonial home at House No.G-199, Sector 10,

D.L.F., Faridabad, but after 15 days of marriage, the accused started

harassing her while saying that they were expecting a luxury car in dowry,

whereas her parents have not given them a luxury car. They received big

proposals for the marriage of their son. Accused started demanding a car

and cash of Rs.10 lacs and rather threatened that when she will go to meet

her parents, then return after fulfilling their demands. They demanded Audi

car and Rs.10 lacs cash. Parents of the complainant had shown their inability

to meet the demands as they had already incurred enough expenses in the

marriage, but still in order to make the complainant happy and on the

demand of the accused, her parents had given Rs.50,000/- cash. But the

accused did not mend their ways and continued to harass her. Two

daughters were born to the complainant on 25.10.2009 and 15.07.2014. The

accused continuously harassed and physically tortured the complainant for

fulfilling their illegitimate demands. A plot (serial No.298, dated

04.03.2013) was purchased by the complainant with the help of her father

and out of her savings, but after some days, the accused started giving

beatings to the complainant for the purpose of transfer of said plot in their

name. Before the birth of second child in the year, 2013, the in-laws

pressurized the complainant for sex determination test and stated that they

had talked to the concerned doctor that in case there is a male fetus, they will

keep him and in case, it is a female fetus, the pregnancy would be aborted.

However, the complainant refused for such test and on 01.04.2014, the

2 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -3-

accused given beatings to her. They did not given her full diet and even did

not get her checked from any good doctor. On August, 2011, the accused

i.e. parents-in-law, jeth-jethani demanded from her Rs.2 lacs and said to take

this amount from her parents. Accordingly, she informed her father and on

13.08.2011, her father gave Rs.1,25,000/- to the accused so that the greed of

the accused can be satisfied. Again on 13.12.2013, father of the complainant

given Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused, but the accused tortured and abused her

continuously. On 01.03.2014 in the night, her husband came in a drunken

condition and made unnatural sex relation with her without her consent, for

which, she suffered the whole night, but the accused did not bother all this.

All the accused in conspiracy separated the accused on 02.03.2014 and sent

her to live in a rented house at Sector 11, Faridabad. They also stated that

the plot which is situated in Sector 11, Tullip Housing Private Company, E-

Block, Faridabad, is theirs (accused) and on allotment, the same will be

given to the complainant. The accused also started to visit the rented house.

During this time, the complainant came to know that one girl, namely

Vandana Kaushik had come in relation with her husband. However, when

she complained to the accused regarding this relationship of her husband,

instead of stopping him, they said that she (complainant) is not beautiful,

whereas the other lady (Vandana) is beautiful and it would be nice if Varun

marry with that lady. In the first week of November, father of the

complainant gave Rs.2 lacs to the accused, so that she could live peacefully

in her matrimonial home, but still the accused did not mend their ways and

on 14.08.2015, all the accused in collusion with each other put pressure on

the complainant to fulfill their demands, but since she had shown her

3 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -4-

inability to meet such demands, all the accused gave her beatings. Still her

parents in October, 2015 made understand all the accused and on their

demand, gave Rs.1 lac cash. In the night of 25.02.2016, her husband made

unnatural sexual relations with her and she suffered with pain for the whole

night on this count, but her husband (Varun) did not bother all this. She told

this incident to her mother-in-law, but she (mother-in-law) did not listen to

her and the next day i.e. 26.02.2016, her jeth (petitioner No.3-Gaurav

Kamboj) dropped her husband-Varun at the house of Vandana. The accused

did not improve themselves and continuously tortured her to sell out the

plot. The money which was deposited in her name and in the name of her

daughter Dhanya, petitioner No.2 (mother-in-law) by torturing her, got her

signature affixed and drawn Rs.42,000/- on 07.11.2016 through cheque and

Rs.13,000/- in cash. On 06.03.2017, petitioner No.1 (father-in-law) forcibly

took a cheque from her for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1

and 2 are old parents-in-law of the complainant. Moreover, petitioner No.2-

Sanyogita Kamboj is a patient of cancer. Petitioners No.3 and 4, who are

jeth and jethani of the complainant, are staying with petitioners No.1 and 2

in a separate house. He refers to the address given in the memo of parties

and submits that the complainant and her husband are residing separately in

different accommodation i.e. Sector 28, Faridabad. Earlier, they were

residing in Sector 11, Faridabad. There is a tendency to implicate all the near

relatives in the dispute like the present one. Moreover, the marriage between

the parties was solemnized on 02.12.2008 and, therefore, the demand of

dowry after 10 years of marriage is quite unrealistic. At the most, the

4 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -5-

dispute, if any, is between the complainant and her husband and the

petitioners cannot be made to suffer merely for the reason that they are the

parents and brother bhabi of the husband of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another Versus State of U.P.

and another-2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812 to contend that there is a

tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the

domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute. He also refers to a

judgment of this Court in Anita and others Versus State of Punjab-CRM-

M-27044-2001, decided on 17.07.2003 to contend that FIR under Sections

498-A, 406 of IPC lodged by wife against entire members of family of

husband including four unmarried sisters and brother was quashed by this

Court, as it is not believable that unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of

the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There

is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations

between the husband and the wife become strained.

Mr. Sammi, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent

No.2 has argued that the petitioners and the complainant were staying in the

same house and immediately after 15 days of marriage, all the accused

started demanding Rs.10 lacs and a luxury car from the complainant and she

was repeatedly harassed/tortured by the petitioners for demand of dowry.

There are specific allegations against the accused. Moreover, at different

times, the money was entrusted to the petitioners on their asking. The

complainant had no option except to satisfy the demands of the accused and

her parents have given amounts to the accused repeatedly. Even in the year

5 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -6-

2014, they started living separately, but thereafter, the whole family started

staying together. It is the father of the complainant who made investment in

the plot and the petitioners have not contributed any amount in the plot.

Thus, the plot was purchased from the fund received from the father of the


I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

There is no dispute that marriage of respondent No.2-Nitu

Kamboj was solemnized with the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely,

Varun Kamboj on 02.12.2008 and out of this wedlock, two daughters were

born to them on 25.10.2009 and 15.07.2014. The allegations against the

petitioners are that they have been pressurizing the complainant to meet their

demands of Rs.10 lacs and a luxury car. The address so given by the

petitioners in the present petition is different to that of the petition filed by

the co-accused Varun Kamboj who is none else but the husband of the

complainant. From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there is no specific

averment in the FIR that after 2014, the petitioners were staying with the

complainant except that they visited the complainant and her husband on

different times. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be a patient of cancer and this

fact is not seriously controverted by the learned State counsel or the counsel

for the complainant. It is clear from the FIR that the real dispute is between

the complainant and her husband and that too because the husband was

allegedly maintaining extra marital relations. This had probably caused

differences in the family. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), it has

been held that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of

the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute.

6 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -7-

The relevant paras 17 to 21 are reproduced as under:-

“17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had
been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the
sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the
anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s
relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the
charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take
cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The
learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the
allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet,
none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the
married sister of the complainant’s husband who was
undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s
husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to
hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister
in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings
against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was

18. In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is
concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct
to the extent that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be
decided by the trial court itself. But this ground was just one of
the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against the
appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it was also
alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the
appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC. The High
Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the
consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who
are only brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and
are not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded
dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought to have

7 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -8-

considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the
jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to
whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband
was fit to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse
of the process of the court.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the
FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except
casual reference of their names who have been included in the
FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family
members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance
against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that
there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the
household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a
matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the

20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad Ors. reported in 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
290: (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute,
this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about

8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 -9-

rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.”

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes.

21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the
matter of B.S. Joshi Ors. vs. State of Haryana Anr. it was
observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal
Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or
by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a
view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the
wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives
and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband
and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual
divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court
would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling
earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would
not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would
however be a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to
exercise such a power.”

9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::
CRM-M-57384-2018 – 10 –

Similar are the observations made in Anita and others’s case


Therefore, having perused the contents of the FIR and the

aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view that the present FIR qua the

petitioners is liable to be quashed as the petitioners were named in the FIR

being closely related with the husband, who had a matrimonial dispute with

his wife. Moreover, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on

02.12.2008, and demand of dowry by such relatives after about 10 years of

marriage is quite unrealistic.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.199

dated 15.05.2018 registered under Sections 323, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 and

120-B of IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, is quashed.

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No

10 of 10
22-03-2020 22:29:04 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation