Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pehlad Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 23 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: II(1997)DMC195
Author: K.S. Kumaran
Bench: K.S. Kumaran
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J.
1. By this common order I dispose of two Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 5135-M/1994 and 5441-M/1994 filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, for quashing the Complaint Case No. 198/1993 filed under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and also for quashing the consequential proceedings including the summoning order dated 25.9.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.
2. The complaint has been preferred by Dazy against her husband Pehlad her mother-in-law Piar Bai (Ram Piare), her brother-in-law Ravi Kumar and his wife Usha, her other brother-in-law Vijay Kumar and father-in-law Piare Lal. Cr. Misc. 5135-M/1994 has been filed by her husband-Pehlad, father-in-law Piare Lal, and Usha, the wife of the brother of Pehlad. Cr. Misc. 5441-M/1994 has been filed by mother-in-law Ram Piare, and the other brother-in-law Vijay Kumar.
3. Admittedly, the marriage between Dazy and Pehlad took place on 12.4.1986 at Faridabad. The complainant-wife has alleged in her complaint that certain articles of dowry were given and entrusted to her husband and the other relations mentioned above on the assurance that the said articles shall be returned to the complainant as and when they reach the matrimonial home. The complainant has urged that since her husband and the other relations mentioned above were residing in one house as joint family, she did not object to their using the articles, but, in spite of the requests made by her time and again to hand over those articles, they did not do so. The complainant has further alleged that her husband and other relations started torturing her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. According to her, the behaviour of her husband and the other relations mentioned above was so cruel that it became difficult for her to remain in the matrimonial home, but yet, she preferred to stay in the matrimonial home. According to her, in spite of this she was driven out from the matrimonial home 1½ years back. Therefore, she has requested the Court to take action against her husband and other relations mentioned, above under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, before whom this complaint was filed, after taking the preliminary evidence, found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the husband and his other relations under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and accordingly summoned them by his order dated 25.9.1993, aggrieved by which these two petitions have been filed.
4. I will refer to the wife as the complainant and the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by their relationship to her. The petitioners contended that prior to the marriage her husband-Pehlad and his father were residing in a house at Faridabad where none of the brothers of the husband-Pehlad were living. According to the petitioners, the wife used to pick up quarrel even on petty matters and after the birth of the daughter (on 13.1.1988) she forced her husband-Pehlad to take up a separate residence. The petitioners state that after April, 1988 the complainant and her husband never resided with the father of the husband also. According to them, the complainant was in the habit of abandoning the matrimonial home and going away, necessitating complaints to the police also. According to the petitioners, the complainant without the consent of her husband took away the gold ornaments, clothes and cash and left the home on 23.11.1991 and has ever since been living with her parents at Karnal. The petitioners' claim that the husband had even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 4.6.1993 which was not even contested by the wife resulting in an ex-parte order on 13.12.1993. According to them, this complaint is only a counter blast to petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. The petitioners contend that the articles mentioned in the list filed alongwith the complaint were not given as dowry at the time of the marriage. According to them, whatever items that had been brought by the wife at the time of the marriage had been taken away by her in November, 1991. They contend that vague allegations have been made about the articles of dowry allegedly handed over to the relations of the husband. The petitioners also contend that the allegations regarding cruelty do not make out an offence under Section 498-A, IPC. They also contend that it has been wrongly stated that the articles of dowry were handed over at Karnal and, therefore, the Court at Karnal had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The petitioners also contend that the complaint also suffers from latches and delay. A reply has been filed by the wife in Cr. Misc. No. 5441-M/1994 supporting her complaint.
6. I have now to consider whether the allegations in the complaint filed by the wife prima facie show the commission of an offence under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, and if so, against which of the petitioners.
7. I will first deal with the entrustment of dowry, the alleged demand and refusal to return the same. In paragraph 2 of the complaint, the wife has alleged that a ring and a wrist watch were given to the husband-Pehlad. The complainant has also alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint as follows :
"That at the time of marriage i.e., on 12.4.1986 when the formality of the marriage was completed, the complainant's father entrusted the following articles i.e. gold amounting to Rs. 30,000/- which includes two Karas of two tolas, one set of 4½ tolas, chain of 1½ tolas and topas. The above said articles were entrusted to the mother-in-law of the complainant by the father of the complainant being Istridhan of the complainant."
The complainant has alleged in paragraph 4 as follows :
"......respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who have been living alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entrusted with the refrigerator--Kelvinator, Texla T.V., Almirah, double bed, sofa set, mixy, centre table, one iron box, sewing machine, washing machine, besides this, warm suit was entrusted to the respondent No. 1 and also another wrist watch was entrusted to the respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 750/-respectively and besides this, the clothes of the family of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were also entrusted to them; thus, in all, the complainant's family entrusted articles worth Rs. 97,400/- to the respondents...."
She has also alleged in paragraph 6 of her complaint as follows :
"Since the articles were handed over to the respondents here at Karnal and further she was tortured mentally and physically at Faridabad and subsequently at Karnal when the abovesaid articles were not returned, hence the complainant was left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint."
In paragraph 5 of the complaint, the wife/complainant has stated as follows :
"That since the abovesaid respondents were living in one house as a joint family as such, the complainant did not earlier object for using the articles by the abovesaid respondents, although time and again, she requested them to hand over the abovesaid articles to the complainant, but the mother-in-law of the complainant who was entrusted ornaments, never returned the same to the complainant, and the father-in-law of the complainant and also the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, who were entrusted other articles, also did not return the same to the complainant."
These are the allegations with regard to alleged entrustment, demand by the complainant wife and refusal by the petitioners herein.
8. From these we find that while there are specific allegations about the entrustment of certain articles to the husband-Pehlad and mother-in-law, the allegations with regard to the entrustment to the other petitioners are general, vague and not specific. Though certain articles are enumerated, a sweeping statement has been made by the complainant that these articles have been entrusted to the other relations of her husband, namely father-in-law, her brother-in-law and wife of one of the brothers-in-law. The complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of dowry was entrusted to which of these other petitioners. Therefore, on such vague and general allegations it cannot be stated that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against any of the other petitioners than her husband and mother-in-law under Section 406, IPC. Of course, the petitioners have taken a plea that the marriage was celebrated at Faridabad and, therefore, the Court at Karnal will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 406, IPC. But, as pointed out already, the complainant has alleged in paragraph 6 of the complaint that the articles were handed over to the petitioner herein at Karnal. I need not go into the question whether this allegation is true or not for our present purpose. Suffice it so say that there is sufficient allegation in the complaint to clothe the Court at Karnal with jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 406, IPC, against the husband-Pehlad and mother-in-law Piare Bai (Ram Piare). But in view of my finding that the allegations about entrustment to the other petitioners are vague and not specific, the complaint as well as the consequential proceedings including the summoning order under Section 406, IPC against the petitioners Ravi Kumar, Usha, Vijay Kumar and Piare Lal have to be quashed.
9. I will next deal with the aspect of cruelty. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, the complainant has stated as follows :
"....the family of the respondents started torturing the complainant on the pretext that she has brought less dowry. The behaviour of respondent No. 1 as well as other respondents towards the complainant was so cruel that it became difficult for the complainant to remain with them in the matrimonial house of the complainant. However, being an Indian Hindu wife, the complainant preferred to stay at her matrimonial house in spite of all the hindrances created by the above said persons and as a result of which, the complainant also gave birth to a son on 27.10.1990. Although, sufficient gifts were given by the complainant's family to the respondent on the abovesaid occasions, but the respondent's greed was never satisfied and they demanded more and more money from the complainant's family, as the complainant's parental family is living from hand to mouth, as such, they could not satisfy the greed of the respondents as a result of which the complainant was dragged out from her matrimonial house by the respondents about 1½ years back."
These are the allegations with regard to the cruelty allegedly meted out to the complainant by the petitioners herein. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the petitioners, these allegations are vague. No specific date and no specific act of cruelty except the vague allegation that she was driven out of the house have been made against any one of the petitioners. It is also noteworthy that the husband of the complainant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 3.6.1993 itself before the Addl. Sessions judge, Faridabad. The complaint has been filed by the wife nearly two months later, i.e., on 16.8.1993. This also goes to support the contention of the petitioners that this complaint is only a counter-blast to the action taken by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, I find that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case for proceeding against any of the petitioners herein under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. Even on the question of jurisdiction I find that the Court at Karnal will obviously have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 498-A because the marriage took place at Faridabad and the complainant and the husband lived at Faridabad. She states that she was driven out from the marital home after she was treated cruelly. Therefore, only the Court at Faridabad will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 498-A. But she has in paragraph 6 of her complaint stated that she was tortured mentally and physically at Faridabad and subsequently at Karnal. She has not alleged that these petitioners came to Karnal and treated her cruelly. It is clear that she has simply stated that she was tortured mentally and physically at Karnal also to simply clothe the Court at Karnal with jurisdiction. Therefore, on the point of jurisdiction also the Court at Karnal cannot try the complaint under Section 498-A, IPC. So, the complaint under Section 498-A against all the petitioners in these two petitions will have to be quashed.
10. In the result, these two petitions are allowed in part. The complaint and the consequential proceedings, including the summoning order against the petitioners Ravi Kumar, Piare Lal, Usha and Vijay Kumar under Section 406, IPC are quashed. Similarly, the complaint and the consequential proceedings, including the summoning order under Section 498-A, IPC, are quashed against all the petitioners in both the petitions.