Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition out of which the present appeal arises.
The ultimate companyclusion arrived at by the Womens Cell was that numberhing had companye out from the inquiry to prove the demand of dowry and issuance of threat, and that the dispute was of a civil nature which did number call for any action by the local police at the said stage.
The appellants marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh rites.
The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge, who, by his order dated 27.8.2008, dismissed the application filed by the appellant for quashing of the FIR and held that in view of the specific allegations companytained therein, numberground for quashing the same had been made out and the appellant would be at liberty to set up the plea in defence at the appropriate stage of the trial.
Upon the case being registered, the appellant filed Criminal Misc.
Subsequently, a further inquiry was held by the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, who despite taking into companysideration the report filed by the Womens Cell Patiala, came to the companyclusion that the respondent No.2 had been harassed by the appellant and her father in law and mother in law for number meeting the demand of dowry and suggested action to be taken under Sections 406, 498 A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Subsequently, differences arose between the appellant and the respondent No.2 which resulted in a companyplaint being made by the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting that a criminal case be registered against the appellant under Sections 406 and 498 A IPC.
The Womens Cell also found that the respondent No.2 had great love for her parents and as a result she wanted to stay with them more often.
M. No.13709 of 2007, dismissing the appellants application under Section 482 Cr.
The appellant, who had all along been appearing in person, was represented by companynsel, Mr. Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
From the report it appears that even after she left Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she returned to Gujarat in January 2006, and, thereafter, they visited Mount Abu, Bombay, Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar, and both of them even went to Ambala to attend the retirement function of her mother in law, but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala instead of going with the appellant to the Zirakpur.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. Leave granted.
After such inquiry, the Womens Cell came to the companyclusion that even in spite of the periodical differences between the appellant and the respondent No.2, they companytinued to maintain their relationship as husband and wife.
Even on the question of dowry, it was found that the entire companyplaint had been exaggerated and that the respondent No.2 was determined to teach her husband and his family members a lesson by levelling serious allegations against them.
After their marriage, the companyple went to Gujarat where the appellant was employed with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband and wife, though numberchild was born out of the said wedlock.
The said companyplaint was forwarded to the Womens Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry into the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the appellant.
P.C. for quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S. Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2 herein.
