Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 12 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ2049
ORDER Jai Singh Sekhon, J.
1. The accused-petitioners have sought the quashment of FIR No. 21 dt. 7-1-1988 for offences Under Sections 498A, 109 and 406, Penal Code registered against them at Police Station City Panipat on the complaint of Harbhagwan Singh, brother of Smt. Raj Rani. According to the allegations in the first information report Smt. Raj Rani was married with Ashok Kumar accused-petitioner on 4-6-1979. Lekh Raj and Krishna Rani are the parents of aforesaid Ashok Kumar while Karam Chand and Kamlesh are his brothers and Renu is his sister. It is alleged that parents of Smt. Raj Rani had spent Rs. 85,000/- on her marriage but Smt. Raj Rani's in-laws being not satisfied with the dowry, started maltreating her and made her life miserable. It is further maintained that even after the marriage, the complainant gave Rs. 8000/- for the refrigerator and promised to give scooter whenever he will be able to manage money but the in-laws of Smt. Raj Rani kept on troubling her and ultimately she was turned out about six years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint was filed on 7-1-1988. Thereafter, Ashok Kumar petitioner filed a petition for divorce Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act levelling false allegations to the effect that Raj Rani was incapable of giving birth to a child. This application was subsequently got dismissed in May 1988 as withdrawn after Dr. Prem Lata, Lady Doctor, opined that Raj Rani was capable of conception. A complaint on these allegations was filed before the Judicial Magistrate who referred the same to the police Under Section 156 of the Criminal P.C. and on the same date a case Under Sections 498A, 109, and 406, IPC, was registered against the accused-petitioners. Subsequently, during investigation offence under Section 406, IPC has also been added. The charge-sheet has already been put in before the trial Court.
2. The accused-petitioners have sought quashment of the FIR and investigation connected therewith on the ground that as per allegations in the complaint, offence under Section 498A was allegedly committed prior to the year 1983 and that the provisions of Section 498A, IPC having been inserted vide Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983 which came into force with effect from 25-12-1985, the petitioners are not liable for that offence. It is also maintained that the allegations of entrustment of alleged dowry being vague, no offence Under Section 406, IPC, is made out. The provisions of Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. are also stressed in order to hold that the cognizance of these offences cannot be taken being barred by time as both these offences are punishable with imprisonment for three years and were committed about six years prior to the filing of the complaint.
3. Mr. J. B. Tacoria, the learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Gopi Chand Bhalla, the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, maintained that the offence Under Section 406, IPC being continuous one, there is no question of the cognizance of the same being barred by time. It is also maintained that the allegations of the husband in the divorce petition regarding Raj Rani being incapable of conceiving would also amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A, IPC, and thus limitation will start from the said date. It is further stressed that the husband and the parents-in-laws of Raj Rani were entrusted with the Stridhan of Raj Rani and they having not returned the same to her so far, are ex facie liable for offence Under Section 406, I.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Admittedly, according to the first information report lodged on 7-11-1988 at the instance of Harbhagwan Singh complainant, brother of Smt. Raj Rani, the accused-petitioners had turned her out six years earlier, which, in turn, implies that the last act of cruelty towards Raj Rani took place somewhere in the year 1982 whereas the provisions of Section 498A, IPC were inserted in the Penal Code vide Act No. 46 of 1983 and came into force with effect from 25-12-1983. The provisions of Section 498A, IPC read as under :--
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--
Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, cruelty means --
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
A bare perusal of the same leaves no doubt that the legislature intended the operation of this provision to be prospective in nature and not retrospective because in the latter case, it would have specifically stated so. Thus, these penal provisions of Section 498A are certainly prospective in nature and would not be attracted to this case where the alleged act of cruelty towards the wife by the husband or the latter's relatives took place prior to the insertion of Section 498A in the Penal Code. These acts may be otherwise punishable under the then existing provisions of the Code. Therefore, none of the petitioners could be held even ex facie liable for the offence Under Section 498A for the act of alleged cruelty towards Raj Rani prior to the year 1983 when Section 498A was brought on the statute book.
5. The question then arises whether the levelling of false allegations regarding the incapability of Raj Rani to conceive a child by the husband in divorce petition would amount to cruelty Under Section 498A. In this regard it is noteworthy that the Explanation (a) appended to Section 498A, IPC, reproduced above clearly shows that any wilful conduct on the part of the husband which will cause injury or danger to life whether mental or physical to the wife would amount to such cruelty. Ashok Kumar husband having levelled such false allegations in the divorce petition would ex facie be liable for the same although such offence Under Section 498A of the Penal Code cannot be said to be a continuous one. According to the allegations in the complaint, Ashok Kumar accused withdrew the divorce petition in May 1983. The provisions of Section 498A having come into force with effect from 25-12-1983, would not be attracted in the case of Ashok Kumar also as the alleged act of cruelty took place prior to May 1983, although levelling of false allegations in the petition for divorce by Ashok Kumar that his wife is incapable of conceiving a child amounts to mental cruelty and fall within the ambit of Section 498A of the Penal Code.
6. The allegations regarding the offence Under Section 406, IPC are that at the time of marriage on 4-6-1979, parents and brother of Raj Rani had given all kinds of goods worth Rs. 85,000/-. Admittedly, the parents of Ashok Kumar were alive and thus these articles were entrusted to them by the parents of Raj Rani. She was turned out by her parents-in-law and husband from their house in the year 1982 and her stridhan even was not returned to her. It is not acceptable that Renu petitioner who was minor at the time of her brother's marriage or Karam Chand Kamlesh, brothers of the husband would accept the articles given in dowry on the occasion of the marriage of the latter in the presence of the parents of Ashok Kumar. There is no specific allegation in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses including that of Raj Rani recorded during the investigation of the case regarding entrustment of these articles to Renu, Karam Chand and Kamlesh accused-petitioners. Thus, their case is distinguishable qua the remaining accused-petitioners.
7. Section 472 of the Cr. P.C. provides that in a case of continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation will start to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. The term "continuing offence" has not been defined in the Code or in any other statute. The apex Court in Bhagirath Kanojia v. State of M.P. (1985) 1 Chand LR(Cri) 112 : (AIR 1984 SC 1688) held that the expression "continuing offence" has not been defined in the Code intentionally because expressions which do not have a fixed connotation or a static import are difficult to define. Their Lordships then referred to the earlier observations of the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, (1973) 1 SCR 1004 : (1973 Cri LJ 347) and relied upon the following observations in that case :--
"A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirements is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and act or omission which continues and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time of occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all."
8. In the case in hand, obviously the husband and parents-in-law of Smt. Raj Rani are in possession of her stridhan. They have refused to hand over this property to her despite repeated requests although she is legally entitled to all the jewellery etc. gifted to her even by her husband and in-laws at the time of her marriage and later on. It is not a case of that type where the misappropriation of the money was involved. Thus, under these circumstances, the offence Under Section 406, IPC appears to be a continuing one. If that is so, no case is made out for quashing the first information report or the investigation conducted against Ashok Kumar husband, Krishna Rani alias Bishni Devi, mother-in-law and Lekh Raj father-in-law of Smt. Raj Rani. In the case of continuing offence, fresh limitation will start running from the day Smt. Raj Rani makes a demand from these accused for the return of her stridhan and they refuse to do so.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition partly succeeds to the extent that the first information report and all the investigation conducted thereunder stands quashed qua the implication of Renu, Karam Chand and Kamlesh petitioners while the proceedings for offence Under Section 498A,/109, IPC, are also quashed against Smt. Krishna Rani, Lekh Raj and Ashok Kumar petitioners being barred by time, However, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings Under Section 406, IPC against Smt. Krishna Rani, Lekh Raj and Ashok Kumar accused-petitioners.
10. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.