Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh And Others vs Kaushalya Devi on 19 May, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.5.2009
Balbir Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Kaushalya Devi
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mrs.Amarjit Khurana, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-2) filed by the respondent under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code "IPC"- for short), in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fazilka and the summoning order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 2
The case of the complainant/respondent as per complaint (Annexure P-2) is as under:-
1. That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized by way of Anand Karaj in the presence of the relatives and respectables for 5 years ago with accused No.1 Gurdial Singh in the house of my father Arjan Ram, village Begawali, Tehsil Fazilka.
2. That the father Arjan Ram and mother Bega Bai of the complainant spent money on the marriage of the complainant in the presence of the relatives and respectables beyond their capacity. The accused No.1 Gurdial Singh was Given two wrist watches (one lady and one gents), 20 tolas silver jewellery which includes Panjeba, two bangles weighing 3 tolas, one hairpin silver weighing 2 tolas and 5 tolas gold jewellery which includes a pair of ear rings weighing 1-1/2 tolas, one pair weighing one tola, 1 gold kara, one chain weighing one tola, one ring1/2 tola and accused No.2 Balbir Singh, 2 boxes with 8 winter bedding. 8 summer bedding, 8 double bed sheets, 18 pillow, 4 quilts (kambals), accused No.3 Sumitra Rani was given 3 boxes with stitched and un-stitched 20 lady suits and 20 gents suits, 10 turban, 4 suits for maternal family, 10 jersi, 2 Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 3 sweaters, accused No.4 Jetto Bai was given one sewing machine, one mixi, one wall clock, one Godrej Almirah, one Black and white television, one fridge, one double bed, one mattress. Accused No.5 Kulwant Kaur was given 6 chairs with seat covers, one big table, 151 untensils of bronze and tamba were handed over as trustee.
3. That the accused No.1, my husband and accused No.2, my brother in law and accused No.3 lady and accused No.4 and 5 maternal grand mother and grand father. In my marriage, accused No.1 came as a bridegroom and all others came as members of the barat including accused no.2 to 5 came in my marriage.
4. That at the time of marriage of the complainant, my parents in the presence of the relatives and respectables, Istridhan of the complainant was handed over to the accused as per para No.2 as trustee and it was also said that this Istridhan is of the complainant and it will be handed over to her.
So in this way my father spent Rs.1.5 lacs on my marriage.
5. That after the marriage, the complainant started living with accused No.1 as wife and were Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 4 performing the duties of the wife. No child was born to the complainant through this wedlock.
6. That all the accused are members of one family and are greedy persons. They give beatings to the complainant and also taunt that she brought less dowry and that too of not good quality and also demanding more dowry. Accused No.1 was dancing at the tunes of his sister in law-accused No.3 Sumitra Rani and at her instigation he started misbehaving and beatings with the complainant and also demanding cash Rs.20,000/- and a scooter. But still the complainant tolerated the beatings of the accused and performed the duties of the wife while living with accused No.1. The complainant became pregnant number of times from accused No.1, but at the asking of the sister in law accused No.3 Sumitra Rani, accused No.1 gave some medicines to the complainant. He insisted upon me that this medicine is for strength but with this medicine the foetus whelping in my womb washed away. Because accused No.3 did not want child from me and was having an intention to get another marriage. Due to this, complainant was beaten mercilessly and whole of the Istridhan of the Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 5 complainant was also kept by them and all the accused throw me in three clothes from the house and also asked me that in case she will brought a scooter and cash of Rs.20,000/- only then she will be rehabilitated. The complainant told them that her father has already expired and the complainant is not able to fulfill their demands, but all the accused did not hear to the complainant and the complainant came to her parent's house with her mother in village Begawali.
7. That approximately 4 months ago, the complainant alongwith Bhaya Ram Lal and Arjan Ram and Satnam, Member Panchayat, village Begawali, Tehsil Fazilka and Kashmir Lal s/o Mehanga Ram, village Saria, Tehsil Jalalabad and Krishan lal, village Jeeva Arian, Jai Chand son of Dava Ram (Chacha Saina) village Panjay ke Wala, Lal Chand son of Bagh Chand, village Panjay kew ala, Tehsil Jalalabad came as a panchayat and went to the accused and requested them that if there is any mistake on the part of the complainant, she may be forgiven and rehabilitated in the house, but accused did not hear the panchayat and recreated that she will be rehabilitated only when Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 6 the complainant will fulfil their demands. Thus the panchayat was dejected and came back.
8. That approximately about 2 months ago, the complainant alongwith panchayat came to the accused where all the accused and their family members were present. Then the panchayat said that the complainant may not be harassed and she may be rehabilitated and do not demand anything and also she may not be beaten, then all the accused in single voice declared that we will not rehabilitated the complainant unless and until she will fulfill our demands, then in the presence of the panchayat, the complainant demanded the return of her Istridhan then the accused said that neither we will rehabilitate her nor we will return the Istridhan. The Istridhan may be misappropriated instead accused No.1 may marry again because accused No.1 was already married before the marriage with the complainant and due to misunderstanding accused No.1 got divorce. So the panchayat dejected second time and return back.
9. The accused No. 1 got married with Darshna Rani village Tariwala, Tehsil Jalalabad, this was first marriage. From that marriage they have one issue Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 7 Lakhmir Singh aged 13 years and he is residing with accused No.1.
10. That now complainant to take action against the accused and get back dowry articles. The police department has not taken any action against the accused and they had not return the dowry articles.
11. That the accused intentionally misappropriated the dowry articles which was given at the time of my marriage, still now they had not returned and to get more dowry. They use to give beatings and tortured the complainant. The accused has admitted these offences.
12. That dowry articles were given to accused at village Begawali, Tehsil Fazilka, police Station Khui Khera which is under the jurisdiction of this court, that's why this case is under the jurisdiction of this court.
13. Complaint is that the accused intentionally misappropriated the dowry articles and gave beatings and harassed very badly and kicked her out in three clothes and demanded more dowry. This is under Article 406, 498A, 120-B IPC. It is requested that action should be taken against the accused and I will every kind of proof."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 8 petitioner No.1 is the elder brother of husband of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are sisters of Gurdial Singh, husband of the respondent. All the petitioners are married and residing separately. They have been falsely involved in this case due to their relationship with husband of the respondent.
In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 9 to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 10 of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-2) reveals that there are general allegations against the petitioners. In fact, the demand of cash and scooter had been made by husband of the respondent. Although, it has been alleged in the complaint that the said demand was made at the instance of petitioner No.2 yet in case a scooter is brought by the respondent, the same would be used by her husband and not by the petitioners. It has been averred in the petition that all the petitioners are living separately since their marriage. A perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that petitioner Nos.1 Criminal Misc. No.M-579 of 2005 (O&M) 11 and 2 have got a separate ration card along with their children. The fact that the petitioners are married and residing separately has not been controverted by the respondent by filing a reply. In fact, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On the last date office was directed to reflect the name of the counsel for the respondent in the cause list but despite that nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
A perusal of the complainant (Annexure P-2) as well as the submissions made in the petition lead to the inference that the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case merely because of their relationship with Gurdial Singh, husband of the respondent. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint (Annexure P-2) filed by the respondent under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Fazilka and the summoning order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2009 anita