Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Kaur vs Harjinder Kaur on 26 April, 2010
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-45869 of 2007
Date of Decision: April 26, 2010
Mandeep Kaur
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Harjinder Kaur
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the respondent.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Petitioner Mandeep Kaur seeks the quashing of criminal complaint dated May 7, 2004, annexure P-1 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Amritsar and order dated March 16, 2005, annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner has been summoned in the complaint filed by the respondent.
As per the allegations in the complaint, annexure P-1, complainant- respondent was married to Sukhwinder Singh on January 15, Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [2] 1999 at Amritsar. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. On June 18, 2000, Sukhwinder Singh husband of the complainant- respondent committed suicide. Thereafter the complainant and her mother Amarjit Kaur were impleaded in the murder case of Sukhwinder Singh. The complainant- respondent and her mother Amarjit Kaur were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar on October 8, 2001. After acquittal of the complainant and her mother Amarjit Kaur, they went to Village Chak Kare Khan and saw that all the dowry articles of the complainant were taken by Mohinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, accused No.2 and 3 in the complaint and by Surinder Kaur, mother-in-law of the complainant. When the complainant asked them to return the articles, they refused to do so and pushed her out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter she had been residing with her parents in Village Sultanwind. On April 1, 2004 at 8.00 a.m. when the complainant was present in her house alongwith Amarjit Kaur, non- applicant Baljinder Kaur who is sister-in-law of the complainant came to her house and asked her that she will kidnap and take away Gagandeep Singh with her. Complainant strongly opposed her and at that time Mohinder Singh, non-petitioner, Mukhtiar Singh and Baljinder Kaur alongwith one unknown person had entered the house of the complainant and they were trying to kidnap and take away the son of the complainant forcibly. The complainant and her mother raised hue and cry and many people gathered at the spot and meanwhile her brother Davinder Singh was also reached at the spot., When the accused saw many people gathered, they ran away on their scooter.
Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [3]
As per the complaint annexure P-1, the allegation of attempt of kidnapped is against Baljinder Kaur, Mohinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and one unknown person. Vide order dated March 16, 2005, on the basis of the preliminary evidence, the summoning Court prima facie feeling that on April 1, 2004 at about 8.00 a.m. accused named in the complaint had committed house trespass by entering in the house of the complainant and threatened her, opted to issue summoning order against the accused named in the complaint.
It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner got married to Malkiat Singh in the year 1992 and thereafter both husband and wife are staying in Village Mugal Chak, Tehsil Tarn Taran District Amritsar. Voter card has been placed on record as annexure P-4. The petitioner alongwith her husband has shifted to Shampur, (Dehradun) in the year 1996. A copy of the election card showing the address of the petitioner of Dehradun has been placed on record as annexure P-5.
In the complaint and in the evidence, the fact disclosed by respondent is that Baljinder Kaur @ Gurdeep Kaur, daughter of Mohinder Singh was also present when attempt was made to kidnap the son of complainant. The petitioner does not have the said two names. An attempt was made by the Court to summon Baljinder Kaur at the address given but nobody could be served and report was submitted that correct address has not been given. The concerned Judge ordered to furnish correct address. Under the garb of furnishing correct address vide application dated July 30, 2007, name of the petitioner was inserted in para 2 saying that accused No.1 Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [4] is also known as Mandeep Kaur @ Guddi and her correct address was disclosed. The complainant filed process fee and the summons were sent to the petitioner. It is submitted that it is a glaring example of wreak- vengeance by the complainant who could not settle in the house of her in- laws and moved alongwith her husband to a village. Thereafter the husband of complainant died under mysterious circumstances. Somehow getting the benefit of doubt in the criminal case, she was acquitted. The petitioner as such has been summoned.
In the reply filed by the respondent- complainant, it is mentioned that the petitioner has been specifically named in the complaint as Baljinder Kaur @ Gurjit Kaur daughter of Mohinder Singh because she is called in the family by this famous name. Mandeep Kaur is also the name of the petitioner alongwith her name Baljinder Kaur. Identity of the petitioner is not disputed as specifically alleged by the complainant. The name of Mandeep Kaur was provided by the complainant to the lower Court just to avoid confusion.
After going through the reply, this Court is of the considered opinion that the name of the petitioner as Mandeep Kaur was neither mentioned in the complaint nor she was arraigned as an accused with the said name. Even otherwise, the allegations against the petitioner in the complaint are absolutely vague. The complainant has alleged that on April 1, 2004 an attempt was made to kidnap her son Gagandeep Singh by Baljinder Kaur who had gone to her house alongwith Mohinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. The allegation is against Mohinder Singh and Mukhtiar Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [5] Singh that they had alongwith one un-known person entered the house of the complainant and they tried to kidnap and take away Gagandeep Singh forcibly. There has not been any act of kidnapping having been completed. Whether it was a step of preparation of kidnapping or it was an attempt of kidnapping by Mohinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh is yet to be determined but the allegation against Baljinder Kaur is that she is sister-in-law of complainant and was merely asking her that she will kidnap and take away Gagandeep Singh with her. Neither any overt act has been attributed to Baljinder Kaur nor she has been named as Mandeep Kaur. It is not clear from the record whether the husband of complainant had two sisters with different names of Baljinder Kaur and Mandeep Kaur. Since the complainant and her mother had faced trial for murder of her husband at the instance of her in-law, the complaint seems to be a counter-blast and a step to harass the petitioner who is her sister-in-law. The relationship of petitioner to the complainant being sister-in-law is that of natural rival and there are admitted circumstances of unpleasant relationship between the complainant and her in-laws. The allegations against the petitioner also do not constitute prima facie any offence. Applying the principles of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 604, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner are absolutely an abuse of the process of the Court.
Even otherwise, the summoning order had been issued in this case on March 16, 2005 after the amendment of Section 202 vide Act No.25 of 2005. Requiring them when the accused is residing at a place beyond the Crl. Misc. No.M-45869 of 2007 [6] area in which the Court exercising jurisdiction in a complaint made over to it under Section 192 Cr.P.C., the issue of process has to be postponed and enquiry into the case by itself or by directing an investigation to be made by the police or by any other person has to be made for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
In the present case, after Baljinder Kaur was not found at the address given summons were issued to her in the name of Mandeep Kaur by moving an application on July 30, 2007 by furnishing the particulars of the petitioner as Mandeep Kaur @ Guddi alleging that she was residing at Dehradun. The trial Court should have applied its judicious mind while issuing summons in the changed name residing in an area beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court in context to the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint annexure P-1 and the summoning order annexure P-2 against the petitioner only are quashed being an abuse of the process of the Court. The proceedings against the co-accused of the petitioner may, however, continue in accordance with law.
April 26, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE