Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Bhardwaj vs U.T. Administration on 11 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)DMC251
Author: Bakhshish Kaur
Bench: Bakhshish Kaur
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. Satish Kumar Sharma son of Om Parkash Bhardwaj was married to Suparna Sharma on 5.2.1998 as per Hindu rites. Her stay in the matrimonial home was short-lived as she stayed there till March 6,1998. Cash, besides valuable articles, including clothes, given in dowry were entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage.
2. The backdrop of the case is that Suparna Sharma was ill-treated by the accused on the very first day she had landed in the matrimonial home. Abusive language was used against her. The accused also taunted and humiliated her. In addition to this, the accused had cheated the complainant because at the time of alliance, her father was informed that Satish Kumar Sharma was married only once and he had legally divorced his wife, who has remarried. It came to light that Satish Kumar in fact was married twice. Firstly, he was married to Savita, daughter of Shri Pal Sharma, resident of Jhajjar on 12.3.1986. She was ill-treated for bringing insufficient dowry. She was forced to leave the matrimonial home. After staying for nine years with her parents, she sought divorce by filing a petition in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on January 6, 1996 and ex parte decree was granted in her favour.
3. Without caring for the law of the land, Satish Kumar married one Indirawati, daughter of Shri Chandera Dutt of village Bugan, District Sonepat on 14.12.1992. She was also subjected to mental and physical torture. She too obtained divorce on July 14,1994, but, the divorce deed was not signed and approved under the Seal of any Court and it was merely an agreement. This is not a legal divorce in the eyes of law. Satish Kumar being a law graduate has ignored all the parameters of the law.
4. Satish Kumar accused had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act immediately after the bridal night on the flimsy grounds that the complainant was impotent. This fact was not divulged to her with an ulterior motive to obtain exparte divorce. On the contrary, till February 25,1992 Lekhi Ram Sharma, father of Satish Kumar Sharma on the other hand, kept on conveying, on the telephone, to the family of the complainant that the complainant was in U.K. and would visit Chandigarh alongwith Satish Kumar Sharma shortly.
5. On March 6,1992, she was sent to her parents' house in the company of her brother and soon after that the complainant and her brother were implicated in a false case bearing FIR No. 12 dated 10.3.1998 registered at P.S. Division No. 1, Jalandhar under Sections 324/452/34, IPC. The sole idea of getting the case registered against the complainant was to grab the dowry articles. There was no rejoining, shagan, etc. after the marriage. In fact, right from the first day of her marriage she was subjected to solitary confinement and mental torture. Thus, on these allegations the case was registered as per Annexure PI, against Satish Kumar, his parents, his sister and brother-in-law.
6. Santosh Bhardwaj and Om Parkash Bhardwaj-petitioners have, therefore, filed this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR Annexure P1.
7. I have heard Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Lalli, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh assisted by Mr. Dinesh Ghai, , Advocate for the complainant.
8. The reproduction of the averments contained in the complaint Annexure PI, though briefly, would indicate that there is no specific averment of entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioners. Santosh Bhardwaj-petitioner No. 1 is sister of Satish Kumar and Om Parkash Bhardwaj-petitioner No. 2 is husband of Santosh Bhardwaj. General type of allegation is that Rs. 2,500/-. alongwith a wrist watch to Satish Kumar Sharma, Raymond suit length and Rs. 3,100/- were given for Poshak and it was accepted. All female members were offered silk sarees, gold jewellery, cash and sweets. These articles were accepted. Male relatives were given woollen suit lengths, gold rings, cash and sweets. There is also reference to the handing over of demand drafts worth Rs. 49,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- in the name of the complainant which were accepted by Lekhi Ram Sharma, father of Satish Kumar Sharma. Regarding the mental cruelty, again vague allegation has been made implicating the petitioner, which reads as under:
"That Doli was sent to Jalandhar on 6.2.1998 in the morning after the breakfast. Immediately after reaching the matrimonial home at Jalandhar which was as now 328, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar, an abusive, taunting and humiliating language was used by all the respondents at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 and others. She was asked in a very insulting way as to what was the cause of her previous divorce, although full facts were placed before respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before finalising the marriage."
9. It is an admitted fact that the complainant as well as Satish Sharma accused were earlier married. Thus, where the factum of her previous marriage and divorce was already in the knowledge of the accused, then there was no occasion to humiliate the complainant by using abusive language, or, by taunting her, saying as to what was the cause of her earlier divorce, and that too on the day when she had landed in the matrimonial home by stepping out of the Doli. Of course, mere is no averment of demand of dowry or harassment on the part of the petitioners nor there is any specific mention of the items given to the specific persons, particularly, the petitioners.
10. The petitioner has vividly described the alleged ill-treatment meted out to her during her short stay in her in-laws house. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner as to what were the words uttered by her and to what extent the present petitioners treated her with cruelty, so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A, IPC. Similarly, the allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioners and the nature of items entrusted is totally missing.
11. Law is well settled that the High Court has inherent power for quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings. These powers envisaged under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 383: AIR 1992 S.C. 604, Their Lordships or the Apex Court have categorised certain category of cases by way of illustration where the High Court in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, can exercise powers to quash the proceedings. Those categories of cases as pointed out by way of illustration are as follows:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 First Information Report 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 complaint and the evidence collected in support of the case do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR don't constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a 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 me basis 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 proceeding and/ or where there is specific provision in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attempted with mala fide and /or where the proceeding 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.
12. Keeping in view the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as the guidelines as aforesaid, reading of the complaint Annexure P1 as above, would go a long way to show that no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioners, namely, Santosh Bhardwaj, her husband Om Parkash Bhardwaj, who are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, there being no allegation of demand of dowry either directly or indirectly against them. Thus, the question of misappropriation of the same would not arise at all. Similarly, the case of the petitioners is also not prima facie covered under the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 120B, 494, 495, 149, IPC.
13. In the result, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 147 dated 13.11.1998 under Sections 498A/406/120B/494/495 read with Section 149, IPC registered at P.S. Police C.A.W. (Wing), Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings flowing therefrom qua the petitioners Santosh Bhardwaj and Om Parkash Bhardwaj are hereby quashed.