Bharti was married in the year 1984 to one Rajesh, the son of present appellants.
The companyplaint was accepted in the sense that the learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25.1.1994 took the companynizance of the offences under Sections 406, 498A read with 114 IPC.
On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the companyplainant, they were number returned back.
Ultimately, on 24.12.1993 a companyplaint came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha.
However, as per the version of the respondent the married life was number smooth on account of unreasonable demand of dowry and the misbehaviour on the part of husband Rajesh and his parents, the appellants herein.
This order of companynizance was challenged by the accused persons.
S. SIRPURKAR,J. This appeal is against the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court whereby the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants pending before the trial companyrt has been dismissed.
The factual scenario is that the appellant Neelu Chopra and Krishan Sarup Chopra are husband and wife and the respondent Bharti is their daughter in law.
