Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CRL REVISION NO.1832 of 2001
Date of Decision: March 05, 2009
Pawan Kumar ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Pawan Kumar was convicted for an offence under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala vide judgment dated 2.11.1999. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 406 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A IPC . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Barnala, vide order dated 28.11.2001. His co- accused Kamlesh Rani who was also convicted and sentenced under Section 406/498-A IPC by the trial Court was released on probation by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 2 Court in paras 2, 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under:-
" The facts, in brief, are that Anita Rani on 25.8.1997 moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Barnala, on the allegations that she was married to Pawan Kumar on 3.10.89 according to Anand Karaj ceremony at Barnala. After the Anand Karaj ceremony, Naranjan Singh, father of the complainant gave one Soft set, one double bed, two mattresses of dunlop, one almirah of godrej and 11 beddings to Pawan Kumar being Istridhan of the complainant on the condition that on demand by her (complainant) those articles would be returned to her by him. At that time one set of gold, 21 suits stitched and unstitched, 4 sheets of double bed, 4 pillos, 51 utensils of steel were handed over to Kamlesh Rani, accused-appellant, on the condition that the same was the Istridhan of the complainant and she would return the same on her demand. It was further stated that all these articles were taken into possession by the accused in the presence of Naranjan Singh son of Dewa Singh, Hukum Singh son of Dewa Singh, Sukhdarshan Singh son of Kartar Singh and Bharat Bhushan son of Kundan Lal. The accused assured the complainant and her father that they would return the aforesaid articles of Istridhan to the complainant on her demand. After the completion of ceremony of marriage, all these articles were taken away by the accused to village Handaiya. The complainant also went along with them.
3.About 2-3 months after the marriage the accused started maltreating the complainant and asked her to bring scooter, Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 3 Rs.50,000/- in cash to construct a shop/house and Rs.5000/- in cash to purchase a refrigerator. The complainant told the accused that since her father had already spent money more than his capacity in her marriage, he was incapable to fulfill their demand.
4.In February, 1990, father of the complainant gave Rs.5000/- to the accused for the purchase of refrigerator. Thereafter, for some time behaviour of the accused remained good towards the complainant. In the year 1996, they again raised the demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash to construct a shop, a house and to purchase a scooter. When the complainant failed to fulfil the said demand of the accused, she was beaten. In June, 1997, the complainant was beaten and turned out of her bridal house while all the articles aforesaid were retained by the accused, though the same constituted her Istridhan. On July 24,1997, the complainant convened a panchayat consisting of her father Naranjan Singh, Hukam Singh, Bharat Bhushan son of Kundan Lal, Siri Pal son of Ram Lal, Inderpal son of Balwant Singh and Sukhdarshan Singh son of Kartar Singh and the Panchayat visited the house of the accused at village Handaiya and a request was made to rehbilitate the complainant but they refused to do so. At that time, they again raised the demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash and a scooter. The complainant asked the accused to return her Istridhan but they refused to do so. It was further stated that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the Istridhan aforesaid of the complainant and also subjected her to cruelty to coerce her to meet their illegal demand. On the basis of the application aforesaid moved by the Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 4 complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Police District Barnala formal FIR was recorded. The investigation was conducted by Ajit Singh, ASI and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation they were challaned u/ss 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."
Vide order dated 1.12. 2008 passed by this Court, Sh.Jagjit Singh Gill Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. On the last date, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today, again nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
I have gone through the records of the case with the able assistance of the learned State counsel.
Complainant Anita Rani filed an application before Senior Superintendent of Police Barnala on 25.8.1997 stating that she was married to Pawan Kumar on 3.10.1989. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. However, after 2-3 months of marriage, petitioners-Pawan Kumar and Kamlesh Rani (mother-in-law) started harassing her and asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- in cash and a scooter. Husband and mother-in-law had misappropriated the Istridhan articles. Admittedly, petitioner-Pawan Kumar was married to the complainant-Anita Rani. Petitioner-Pawan Kumar had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn as he was unable to pay arrears of maintenance and litigation expenses vide order dated 3.2.1998, Exhibit D2. The divorce petition is Exhibit D3 wherein the factum of marriage of Pawan Kumar with Anita Rani and birth of two children are stated by the petitioner. Complainant, Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 5 while appearing in the witness box as PW1, has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. She has deposed with regard to entrustment of Istridhan articles to the petitioner and his co-accused. However, the said articles on demand were not returned to the complainant and were misappropriated by the petitioner and his co-accused. The testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by Sukhdarshan Singh (PW2) and Naranjan Singh (PW3). In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners had misappropriated the Istridhan articles and had treated the complainant with cruelty. In para 4 of the divorce petition, petitioner has levelled allegations against the complainant that she was having illicit relations with various persons. These allegations also amount to cruelty at the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner examined DW3 Malkiat Singh, MLA who deposed with regard to a compromise effected between the parties, Mark `A'. A perusal of Mark `A' reveals that it is signed by the petitioner. The said compromise was effected on 25.7.1997. The petitioner had assured as per the said compromise that he would not continue his illegal relations with a lady henceforth and would look after his children. This also leads to inference that the petitioner had been treating his wife with cruelty due to his relationship with the other lady. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.
The impugned judgments of the Courts below call for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(Sabina) Judge March 05, 2009 arya