Sham Sunder, J.

This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M-11916 of 2009, filed by Paramjit Kaur and Karamjit Kaur @ Kuldip Kaur, and, Criminal Misc. No. M-13278 of 2009, filed by Sukhwinder Singh and Davinder Kaur, petitioners, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 71 dated 06.05.06, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, P.S. Khuyian Sarwar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom.

2. Sarabjit Kaur, complainant, was married, to Parvinder Singh, on 18.01.02. Sufficient dowry, at the time of the marriage of Sarabjit Kaur, was given. According to the complainant, the petitioners, also tortured her, in connection with the demand of more dowry. It was stated that the articles of dowry, entrusted, to the petitioners, were misappropriated by them.

3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, Sukhwinder Singh, petitioner No. 1, is the brother-in-law (Jeth), and, Davinder Kaur, petitioner No. 2, is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of the complainant, in Criminal Misc. No. M-13278 of 2009, whereas, Paramjit Kaur, petitioner No. 1, and, Karamjit Kaur, petitioner No. 2, are the sisters-in-law (Nandas) of the complainant, in Criminal Misc. No. M-11916 of 2009. He further submitted that, the petitioners, had no concern with the articles of dowry, given, at the time of marriage of the complainant, nor did they ever torture the complainant, in connection with the demand thereof. He further submitted that, Sukhwinder Singh, Davinder Kaur and Karamjit Kaur, were residing separately. He further submitted that, Paramjit Kaur, petitioner, is the unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant, who was neither entrusted any dowry, nor she has misappropriated the same. He further submitted that, the allegations, against the petitioners, are general and vague, and, no offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, were constituted, against them. He further submitted that, the FIR, was got registered, against all the members of the family of the in-laws, just with a view, to take revenge, by the complainant.

5. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No. 1 - State, submitted that, the FIR, was registered, after due enquiry. He further submitted that, the petitioners, misappropriated the dowry articles of the complainant, as also tortured her, in connection with the demand of dowry, from time to time. He further submitted that continuation of FIR and the subsequent proceedings, therefore, would not amount to abuse of process of the Court.

6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petitions, are liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. As stated above, Paramjit Kaur and Karamjit Kaur, are the sisters-in-law of the complainant, whereas, Sukhwinder Singh, is the brother-in-law and Davinder Kaur, is the wife of brother-in-law of the complainant. In case, any dowry, was given, to the complainant, that must have been entrusted, to the husband, mother-in-law or father-in-law. There was no occasion, on the part of the petitioners, to demand the articles of dowry, nor any articles of dowry, were entrusted to them. The allegations, against the petitioners, are vague and general. It is a tendency, on the part of the estranged wife and her family members, to rope in all the members of the family of her husband, in matrimonial disputes. In Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab, 2004(4), RCR (Criminal), 332, where criminal complaint, against husband, his parents and five sisters (one minor and one already married) was filed the proceedings, qua sisters, were quashed. It was observed, by this Court, after referring to a number of cases, decided by the Apex Court, that there is a growing tendency, to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. As stated above, in the instant case, no specific allegations, were levelled, against the petitioners. If any articles, as gifts, were given, to them, at the time of marriage of the complainant, those did not fall within the definition of dowry. In this view of the matter, continuation of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, would be nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court. The same, are, thus, liable to be quashed.

7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 11916 of 2009, and, Criminal Misc. No. M-13278 of 2009, are accepted. FIR No. 71 dated 06.05.06, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, P.S. Khuyian Sarwar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners.

8. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned immediately.