Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 20 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-20.9.2012
Krishan Lal & Ors. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Tajinder Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.N.Pilania, Advocate for respondent No.2.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, the marriage of complainant-Soma Rani alias Sanjna Rani, respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with main accused and husband Janak Raj, on 24.4.2000, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ratia, District Fatehabad. Her parents were stated to have given the sufficient dowry articles, beyond their status, but the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles. They started taunting her on the ground that her father has neither given a motorcycle nor cash of `1 lac in the marriage, as per their expectations. She narrated the entire episode to her parents. It was claimed that on 19.3.2001, a male child was born out of the said wedlock, but no one has cared to see him. Still, the accused taunted her and demanded a CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -2- motorcycle and ` 1 lac in cash. The accused were stated to have refused to rehabilitate her in case their demands were not met. An amount of `20,000/- and 1½ tolas of gold ornaments were claimed to have given to the accused by her parents, but they continued demanding cash and motorcycle in this regard.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail contained in the FIR, in all, according to the complainant that all the accused misappropriated her dowry articles, demanded motorcycle, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against accused Janak Raj (husband), Krishan Lal & Jago (parents-in-law) petitioner Nos.1 & 2, Rekha, Rajni and Suman, daughters of Krishan Lal, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 (sisters-in-law) (Nanands) of the complainant, by way of FIR No.672 dated 13.10.2007 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 324, 506 & 383 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. Aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal prosecution, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-3), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for petitioners did not press the present petition qua petitioner Nos.1 & 2 (parents-in-law) of the complainant and it was dismissed as CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -3- withdrawn qua them by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mohinder Pal, J.), by means of order dated 14.1.2009.
5. Be that as it may, however, the case of remaining petitioners Nos.3 to 5 (sisters-in-law) (Nanands) of the complainant, is entirely on different footings. The bare perusal of record would reveal that very very vague and general allegations that they along with their other main co- accused, have treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are attributed to them, as narrated here- in-above.
6. Such thus being the position on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the impugned FIR (Annexure P3), relatable to petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is liable to be quashed or not?
7. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative in this connection.
8. As is evident from the record, very very vague and general allegations, that petitioners No.3 to 5, along with their other main co- accused, have treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, are attributed to them. The allegations assigned to them are as vague as anything and no specific role or overt- act, constituting the indicated offences, are attributed to them. The main accused-husband and parents-in-law of complainant, to whom, the direct allegations of taunting and treating her with cruelty are assigned, are facing the trial. They (petitioner Nos.3 to 5) are sisters-in-law (Nanands) CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -4- of the complainant. Petitioner No.3 is a young girl about 18 years of age, whereas petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are married and are separately residing with their husbands in their respective matrimonial homes. As per affidavits (Annexures P6 & P7), the marriage of petitioner Suman Rani was solemnized with Vijay on 28.2.2002 and since then, she is residing with her husband in village Bhirdana, District Fatehabad, whereas the marriage of petitioner Rajni Rani was performed on 24.4.2006 with Naresh Kumar alias Vinod Kumar and she is residing in village Rania, District Sirsa. This factual matrix has not been disputed on behalf of complainant. In that eventuality, how, when and in what manner, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 have treated the complainant with cruelty in this relevant direction, remains an unfolded mystery. Moreover, it is highly impossible to believe the version of complainant contained in the FIR (Annexure P3) to be true, as regards the case of these petitioners is concerned.
9. It is now well settled legal proposition that in order to attract the penal provisions against the unmarried/married sisters-in-law, there must be specific allegations or overt-act and prima facie material to indicate that dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the sisters-in-law (Nanands) cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. Where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to sisters- in-law, other than husband & parents-in-law, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -5- dowry, which are totally lacking in the present case. The reliance in this regard can be placed to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Ramesh and others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68, Sushil Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India and others, 2005(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 and Kans Raj Versus State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 695.
10. Not only that, this Court has also considered this aspect of the matter in cases Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 565; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 686 and Ritu Khurana and another v. Brij Lal Chopra 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 117; wherein it was held that "the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband, things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC." This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
11. An identical question recently came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another 2010(7) SCC 667. After interpreting the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it was ruled as under (paras 30 to 36) :-
"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -6- complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -7- entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.
36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -8-
Consequently, this appeal is allowed."
Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is duly applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
12. Sequelly, if the crux of the allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.3 to 5 as described here-in-above, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, no offences in question are made out and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously got registered the FIR (Annexure P-3) against them, in order to wreak vengeance. In that eventuality, if the complainant is permitted to prosecute her sisters-in-law (Nanands), who are residing separately, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to them. Therefore, the complainant appears to have falsely involved petitioner Nos.3 to 5 in the present case. Thus, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-3) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto, qua petitioner Nos.3 to 5 only, deserve to be and are hereby quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for in the manner depicted here-in-above. However, without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case against the remaining main co- accused, the petition filed by petitioner Nos.3 to 5 (sisters-in-law) (Nanands) of complainant is partly accepted. Consequently, the CRM No. M-31533 of 2008 (O&M) -9- impugned FIR (Annexure P-3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, with regard and relatable to petitioner Nos.3 to 5 only, are hereby quashed. They are accordingly, discharged from the indicated criminal case.
15. Needless to state that, nothing recorded here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the main case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only.
20.9.2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No