Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mrs. Ritu Sareen vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 4 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998CRILJ1305
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
ORDER R.L. Anand, J.
1. Mrs. Ritu Sareen has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., praying for the issuance of directions to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to perform their statutory duty as enshrined under Section 154, Cr. P.C., by registering a criminal case against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the basis of complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P-3) (15th February, 1996 as shown to this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Shri J. S. Brar, D.A.G.).
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she was married to respondent No. 4 on 18th June, 1994. Earlier to her marriage, she was working as a Lecturer in S. D. College, Panipat. In 1992 she was approved by respondent No. 4 and his parents and, therefore, she left her job from Panipat and joined as Lecturer in D. D. Jain College at Ludhiana in October 1993. Since then she is working as . Lecturer at Ludhiana. In 1994 respondent No. 4 was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer with United India Insurance Company at Chandigarh. It was assured to the petitioner's family that since the petitioner is working at Ludhiana, therefore, respondent No. 4 shall also get himself transferred to Ludhiana, after their marriage, being a couple case. Father of the petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. The ring ceremony of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 was performed on 11th June, 1994 at her house itself and thereafter their marriage took place on 18th June, 1994. At the-time of ring ceremony as well as marriage, father of the petitioner spent huge amount beyond his reach and gave expensive articles in the shape of dowry apart from cash and golden ornaments. The dowry articles, a complete detail of which is furnished in the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3), were handed over to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 as trustees and to hold on behalf of the petitioner. The lunch to the marriage party was hosted at Hotel Grewlez whereas the marriage was performed at the father's house of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the marriage, respondent No. 4 started insisting the petitioner to bring Rs. 10 lacs from her father so as to enable him to purchase a flat. The petitioner showed her inability on the plea that her father had already spent a huge amount at the time of her marriage. Thereupon the petitioner was treated with extreme cruelty by respondents Nos. 4 to 8, It was stated to the petitioner that until and unless she arranges Rs. 10 lacs from her father, she would not be allowed to be rehabilitated. It is also the case of the petitioner that after marriage, her father gave various articles to respondent No. 4 on different dates, as mentioned in complaint (Annexure P3), valuing at Rs. 50,000/- to respondents Nos. 4 to 8. In para No. 1 of the petition it has been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 deserted her in order to create a ground for divorce. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner on 25-4-1995 before the Court of Additional District Judge. Ludhiana. The petitioner appeared before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, and »did not file a .written statement. She rather made a statement on 28th October, 1995 to the effect that she was prepared to go to the house of respondent No. 4 at Chandigarh. He would take a house at Chandigarh. It was also agreed upon that the petitioner would commute from Chandigarh to Ludhiana daily, where she was posted. The statement of respondent No. 4 was also recorded and on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioner, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by respondent No. 4, was dismissed. It has been: averred by the petitioner that in spite of the undertaking given by respondent No. 4 that he would arrange a suitable accommodation at Chandigarh within 2-3 days and thereafter she would be taken there, he has not fulfilled her demand. The petitioner had been asking respondent No. 4 on telephone and otherwise to comply with his obligations, but to no effect; so much so, she also wrote registered letters dated 20th November, 1995 and 23rd December, 1995^ to respondent No. 4 asking him to inform her the place and date at Chandigarh, where she should reach in terms of the settlement dated 28th October, 1995. In para No. 9 of the petition it has been alleged by the petitioner that on 7th January, 1996 respondents Nos. 4 to 8 came to the house of her father to inform that they are no longer interested in continuing with the merital ties. On this the petitioner asked the said respondents to return her Istri Dhan which her father had entrusted to all of them at the- time of her marriage with respondent No. 4 and subsequently from time to time, However, the said respondents flatly refused to deliver back those articles and thus rendered themselves punishable for committing cognizable offence under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and the Police has failed to discharge its statutory duty as prescribed under Section 154, Cr. P.C. inasmuch as no case has been formally registered against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the basis of the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3). Hence the present petition.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. The petition has been primarily contested by respondents Nos. 4 to 8. The State has not filed any separate written statement. During the course of submissions, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3) and the subsequent proceedings which indicate that the complain was investigated at the level of the authorities, including the D.S.P. and ultimately it was filed under the signatures of the S. S. P., Ludhiana. The D.S.P. made a report dated 9th June, 1996 referring that the differences arise between the matrimonial couple. There was a civil litigation in which there was a compromise but that compromise did not mature. The police ultimately stated in the report that no action was required at the level of the police. Hence that complaint was filed under the signatures of the S.S.P.
4. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 denied the allegations. According to these respondents, matrimonial advertisement was given by the father of the petitioner on 4th December, 1993 in the Tribune. In these circumstances the allegation of the petitioner regarding approval by the husband and his parents for her somewhere in the year 1992 is false. According to these respondents, no ring ceremony was performed. Respondent No. 4 however, admits that he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to this respondent, the marriage was a very simple affair. According to respondent No. 4, only he and his father Shri Vijay Sareen, respondent No. 5, attended the marriage. Respondents Nos. 6,7 and 8 did not. attend the marriage; so much so, they have not visited the house of the petitioner till date. No function was held in the Hotel Grewlez on 18th June, 1994. However, a simple lunch was served at the restaurant in Hotel Grewlez as they had made no arrangement at their house, so much so no arrangement was made for the staying of respondent No. 4 and his family members. It was respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who had taken a room on rent in Hotel Gulmohar on 18th June, 1994 at 10.15 A. M. It has been alleged by these respondents that the petitioner is in possession of the photographs and video films, which will make the absence of respondents Nos. 6 to 8 clear from attending the marriage at Ludhiana on 18th June, 1994, of the petitioner with respondent No. 4. The petitioner had been writing letters from time to time in which it was never alleged that any demand of dowry was made. The house-hold articles were purchased by respondent No. 4 from his personal resources. Respondent No. 4 has already returned the fridge to the father of the petitioner. Some of the articles were purchased by the respondents' family. In short the private respondents have denied the allegations of alleged cruelty, alleged . entrustment of dowry articles to them. The respondents have also placed certain annexures on the record in support of their case.
5. This petition I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Shri Sunil Chadha Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Shri J. S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 8.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the petitioner (Annexure P3) prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and in these circumstances a statutory duty was cast upon respondents Nos. 1 to 3, especially respondent No. 3. To register a criminal case against respondents Nos. 4 to 8. In support of his contention Shri Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon Sunil Kumar Yadav v. The State of Punjab through Secretary, Home Affairs Punjab, Chandigarh 1996 (2) RCC 756; State of Haryana v. Shamial 1994 (2) RCR 498; and Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Punjab 1997 (3) RCC 107.
7. On the contrary, it was submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, that the complaint filed by the petitioned Annexure P3) was duly investigated and prima facie it was found that it was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. This complaint was investigated right up to the level of the D.S.P. and ultimately filed under the signatures of the S.S.P. According to Mr. J. S. Brar, D.A.G., the parties entered into a compromise before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, but unfortunately that compromise fizzled out and in order to put pressure on respondents Nos. 4 to 8, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
8. Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 8, submitted that in the present case there is no reasonable information laid down before the Police that respondents Nos. 4 to 8 committed any offence and in these circumstances the petitioner under the garb of Section 406, I.P.C., and under the provisions of breach of trust cannot be allowed to succeed the present petition and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 cannot be harassed at the hands of the petitioner when the allegations of the petitioner had already been inquired into by respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It was further submitted by respondents Nos. 4 to 8 that prima facie the documents which have been relied upon by the respondents and annexed with the reply as annexures, indicate that the allegations of the petitioner are totally false. There was a simple marriage. There is no allegation or averment in any of the correspondence issued/ sent by the petitioner which would indicate that respondent No. 4 or his parents had ever demanded Rs 10 lacs, as alleged in the petition. The real cause of controversy, according to respondent No. 4, is that the petitioner wanted that respondent No. 4 should shift to Ludhiana. Rather the petitioner is not discharging her matrimonial obligations 'to join the matrimonial home in spite of her undertaking and under the threat of present litigation, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are being harassed. Legal plea has also been taken up by Shri Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 8, in the shape of a case law reported as All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 1997 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 218, where it was laid down that if the Police failed to register a case, the remedy for the party is to file a private complaint and he or she cannot straightway come to the High Court for seeking the directions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Reliance has also been placed on Jagjiwan Kumar v. State of Haryana 1997 (1) RCC 569; and Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab 1997 (1) RCC 632, and it was pleaded that when an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, as another mode to ventilate their grievance, very exceptional circumstances must be made out for invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr. PC.
9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, first of all I would like to say that so far as the legal propositions propounded by both, the parties are concerned; there cannot be any dispute. Section 154(1), Cr. P.C. is very clear on this aspect and it lays down that every information relating to the commission of acognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of the Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him, and every information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing, which discloses a cognizable offence, it is the duty of the Police to register a case, and if the Police fails to discharge its statutory duty, then the Court has the power to pass appropriate directions and equally is true for the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C, conferring inherent powers on this Court, but the provisions under Section 482, Cr. P.C, should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 wherein it was laid down as follows :-
In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Cr. P.C, may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
xx xx xx XX XX Every case has to go on its own facts. It is the case of the petitioner firstly that her marriage with respondent No. 4 was performed in a decent manner and her father spent huge amount beyond his reach and gave costly articles to her in the shape of dowry. When respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner did not file any written statement. At that time she made an offer that she was ready to join and live with her husband at Chandigarh in his house. At that time the petitioner was employed at Ludhiana. In the opinion of this Court, prima facie there was difference of mind between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as the petitioner wanted to lay some conditions vis-a-vis respondent No. 4. The annexures placed on record by respondent No. 4 indicate that the alleged demand of dowry to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs appears to be an afterthought. In these circumstances it will be difficult for this Court to give a blanket directions to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for the registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos. 4 to 8. It will be a moot point which can be proved by leading independent evidence whether respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 ever attended the marriage and under what circumstances and in what manner the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was solemnised. However, it is prima facie established that respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 did not attend the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 4, and in these circumstances the question of entrustment of dowry articles to them would not arise.
10. There is another aspect of this case. The allegations of the petitioners had prima facie been inquired into by respondents Nos. 1 to 3. In these circumstances, the giving of directions again to respondents Nos. 1 to 3, would be a futile exercise.
11. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed with the observations that let the petitioner may file a complaint, if so advised, against the respondents or anybody else, to whom she considers that he or she had committed a cognizable offence vis-a-vis her.
12. Nothing stated would amount to an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case.