Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmod Kumar Oberoi And Ors. vs Radha Rani on 17 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: II(1990)DMC385
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint dated 26-8-1988, Annexure P/1, summoning order dated 8-5-1989, Annexure P/2 and subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.
2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, as emerge from complaint, Annexure P/1, are, that the marriage between Radha Rani, respondent and Parmod Kumar Oberoi petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 17-11-1985 according to Hindu rites, whereas, the ring ceremony was performed at Patiala at the house of the respondent on 10th November, 1985. At that time dowry articles consisting of ornaments, costly clothes cash of Rs. 31,000/- and other costly articles of daily use as mentioned in the list (Annexure 'A') were given by the parents of the respondent, and, entrusted to all the accused on behalf of the complainant for being handed over to her after the marriage. All the articles were listed and the list along with vouchers were given to the accused and the same in their possession. It was further pleaded that the articles mentioned in Annexure 'A' belonged to them and were taken to Amritsar by the petitioners and retained there. In spite of repeated requests the accused-petitioners did not hand over the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that soon after their marriage, all the accused started treating the complainant with cruelty, as they always demanded more dowry from the parents of the complainant. Vidyawati mother-in-law and Achla respondent No. 5 her daughter always taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry. The complainant wilfully suffered all these insults so that her matrimonial home may remain intact. All the accused mal-treated the complainant, even, when she was pregnant. Dr. Krishan Kumar accused gave an injection causing miscarriage of 2-1/2 months old foetus, in order to deprive the complainant birth of second child. Thereafter the complainant fells seriously ill, but, her parents were never informed, and, ultimately her husband left her and minor child Mohit Kumar at Patiala. The husband also destroyed her matriculation and graduation certificates, which caused her mental cruelty. It was next pleaded that all the clothes and jewellery and other articles entrusted to the accused were Istridhan of the complainant, and they are in possession of the same and have wilfully and dishonestly misappropriated the same by converting the said articles to their own use, and, thereby committed criminal breach of trust. Father of the complainant along with other respectables went in the form of Panchayat, and, requested the accused to treat the complainant properly, and, keep her at her matrimonial home. The accused refused to do so. On 1-7-1988, complainant's father along with Satvinder Singh took the complainant to Amritsar to the house of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 who, maltreated and insulted them as well, and, were not allowed to enter the house.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to appreciate the question of proper exercise of inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashment of complaint and other criminal proceedings. Dealing with this aspect of the case, the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Murad AH Khan and Ors., AIR 1989 S.C. 1, held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or, otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible, nor, advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court, is, guided by the allegations, whether these allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge sheet do not in law constitute, or, spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings, would in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not.
4. On behalf of all the accused petitioners it was mainly contended that there are no specific allegations about the entrustment of any specific article of dowry to any particular accused, and, in the absence of any cogent and reliable material on the record concerning alleged entrustment of Istridhan property, no offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioners. It was pleaded that no specific allegations of cruelty or maltreatment on the part of a particular accused towards the respondent have been levelled in the complaint and that no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the petitioners. Reliance in this regard was placed on Single Bench authority of this Court in Anokh Singh and Ors. v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 497, wherein reliance was placed on two other Single Bench authorities of this Court in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 and Kishan Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1989 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 13. Similar was the view expressed by S.D. Bajaj, J. in Gurdev Singh v. Rajinder Singh, 1990 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 133. Therein absence of specific allegations of entrustment of any particular article of dowry to any of the three persons (husband and both parents-in-law) arrayed as accused in the complaint, it was observed that no case under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, where, the allegations regarding entrustment of articles are vague. Reliance in this respect was placed on Shori Lal and Ors. v. Smt. Nisha and Anr., 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 276, and Smt. Manna v. State of Haryana, 1987 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 219.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the authority of apex Court in case Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., AIR 1985 S.C. 628, wherein it was observed that the allegations of entrustment were both clear, specific and unambiguous and, therefore, the complainant should have been given a chance to prove her case. These observations were made on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint detailed as under :--
"(1) that all the accused attended the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and demanded dowry from the parents of the appellant in consideration of the marriage.
(2) -that the parents of the appellant spent Rs. 75,000/- on the marriage and dowry articles worth Rs. 60,000/- (inclusive, of jewellery, wearing apparel etc.) were given and entrusted to accused Nos. 1 to 6 at the time of the Doli on 5-2-1972.
(3) that the articles entrusted to the accused were meant for the exclusive use of the appellant.
(4) that the dowry articles were never given by the accused to the appellant even for her use and possession of the same was illegally, dishonestly and malafide retained by the accused, in order to obtain a wrongful gain to themselves, and, wrongful loss to the appellant.
(5) that on 11-12-1980, in the morning, the accused brought the appellant to Ludhiana in three clothes and refused to give the entrusted articles which were the stridhan of the appellant."
6. Perusal of the complaint, Annexure P/1, in the present case reveals that no clear, or, specific and unambiguous demand of dowry was allegedly made by any of the accused at any time before or at the time of solemnisation of the marriage between' the complainant and petitioner No. 1. No article of dowry or Istridhan was handed over to the accused by the complainant or has father on the day of marriage between the parties. There are general allegations about the entrustment of articles consisting of ornaments, costly clothes, cash of Rs. 31,000/- and other articles of daily use mentioned in the list Annexure 'A' at the time of ring ceremony to all the accused, on behalf of the complainant, by her parents. There is no specific mention in the complaint as to which particular article was handed over to which particular accused. Besides there are only vague and general allegations that after the marriage in spite of repeated requests they (accused) refused to hand over the articles to the complainant. Neither any approximate time with reference to the date of marriage, nor, date month or the year when the allegations concerning demand about return of dowry articles were made, finds mention in the complaint. Similarly, there are no precise, or, specific allegations or instances with reference to time from the date of marriage concerning maltreatment or the acts of cruelty by the accused-petitioners towards the complainant. Such allegations being vague and indefinite would not prima facie make out a case for commission of offence either under Sections 405, 406 or under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. In fact this aspect of the case was not specifically considered in Pratibha Rani's case (supra) where the main question involved was as to whether the moment a woman after her marriage enters the matrimonial home her Istridhan becomes joint property of both the spouses, or, the same attracted any of the essential ingredients of partnership as defined in the Partnership Act or not. There is no such dispute in the present case with regard to the aforesaid two main proposition of law involved in Pratibha Rani's case (supra). The facts and circumstances of the case in hand are entirely different and the authority in Pratibha Rani's case is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. The Single Bench authority of this Court in Anokh Singh's case (supra) and other Single Bench authorities of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to cases where the allegations both with regard to entrustment of articles of dowry and other allegations concerning maltreatment, cruelty on the part of the husband or other relations towards the wife too were vague and uncertain and do not prima facie make out offences punishable under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. All these authorities mainly deal with the facts and circumstances relating to that particular case and the observations made therein do not go against the spirit, or, the principles of law enunciated in Pratibha Rani's case (supra). The question whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are vague and indefinite, or, whether they are precise and specific in order to make out a prima facie case about commission of offence committed by the accused punishable under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code depends upon facts and circumstances of each individual case, and, no hard and fast rule on this aspect can be laid down, as to whether the allegations levelled in a particular case are clear and definite so as to constitute offences under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code, or, as to whether such allegations are vague and indefinite and do not prima facie make out offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
8. From the allegations levelled in the present complaint and other facts and circumstances, referred to above, it is quite apparent that the allegations against the petitioners both with regard to entrustment of articles of dowry or Istridhan or demand of dowry or the acts attributted to the petitioners or acting with cruelty towards the complainant, in order to harass or coerce her to bring more dowry are quite vague and uncertain, and, such general allegations do not prima facie constitute or spell out a case punishable either under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and resort to criminal proceedings on the basis of such complaint in the circumstances of the present case would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint, Annexure P/1, summoning order, Annexure P/2 and consequent proceedings taken against the petitioners by the trial Court are directed to be quashed and this petition is accordingly allowed.