Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meetu Puri vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 April, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-20101 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 23.4.2012
Meetu Puri
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Tejinder Singh Salana, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersenessly, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, are that, the marriage of complainant Parwinder Kaur, daughter of Harbhajan Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with Ranjit Puri son of Amar Puri on 14.9.2007, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. After the solemnization of the marriage, they started residing in her matrimonial home, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child was born out of the said wedlock. The parents of the complainant were stated to have given the sufficient dowry articles, beyond their capacity at the time of the marriage, including one box, iron almirah, sofa-set, double bed, dressing table, dinning table, 51 suits of ` 90,000/-, a cooler, washing machine, sewing machine, 21 beddings, 101 utensils, colour Videocon TV, Juicer mixer and other house hold articles, besides, gold ornaments. CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -2- An amount of ` 30,000/- was also spent at the time of ring ceremony. But the accused were not satisfied and started taunting for bringing less dowry. After two months of the marriage, all the accused put pressure on the complainant to bring a sum of Rs.2 lacs from her parents for purchase of a car. It was claimed that while she was pregnant, the accused put pressure on her to terminate the pregnancy, but she refused. They kept her hungry and deliberately did not provide her food. At the time of birth of a girl child, all the accused quarreled with her & her parents and forced them to leave the place, whereas all the expenses of delivery and hospital were paid by her parents. On 16.9.2008, she was discharged from the PGI and all the accused gave beatings to her after reaching home on account of birth of a female child. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. During the stay in her parents' house, no body went to meet her. On the contrary, the accused threatened her on phone that if she wishes to stay at their place, then she should bring an amount of ` 2 lacs from her parents. However, she resumed cohabitation at the intervention of respectable persons. Her parents gave ` 30,000/- at the time of Chhuchhak ceremony.
2. The case of the complainant further proceeds that the accused gave beatings and again told her to bring an amount of ` 2 lacs from her parents. When she refused to oblige their illegal demand of dowry/cash, then they gave beatings to her. It was specifically claimed that on 26.6.2009 when the complainant was cooking food, then the accused, including the petitioner-accused No.3, entered the kitchen, cut the pipe of gas cylinder with the intention to kill her. They tried to lock the door of the kitchen, but she forcibly came out. They gave beatings to her badly. They tried to burn her by pouring kerosene as well.
3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in the complaint (Annexure P1), which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure P3), inter-alia, the complainant claimed that all the accused, including CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -3- the petitioner-accused No.3, treated her with cruelty, on account of demand of dowry, gave beatings and tried to kill her by cutting the pipe of gas cylinder and pouring the kerosene. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint (Annexure P1) of complainant, a criminal case was registered against the accused, including the petitioner, by means of FIR No.149 dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station City Sangrur.
4. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, petitioner- accused Meetu Puri straightway jumped to file the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that she is unmarried younger sister-in-law of the complainant and has been named as an accused to ruin her matrimonial prospects. The receipt of gifts at the time of ring ceremony and marriage is not denied. However, it was alleged that the ceremonial gifts given to the petitioner at the time of marriage, do not come within the ambit of term "dowry". The allegations alleged against her were stated to be vague and no indicated offences are made out against her. On the contrary, the complainant was claimed to be at fault as she has created the entire trouble. In all, according to the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated and no offences in question are made out against her. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner depicted hereinbefore.
5. The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed their respective separate replies, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -4- complaint (Annexure P1), which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure P3). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
7. At the very outset, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.
(iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not 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 S.155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) 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 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -5- redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(viii)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 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."
8. Not only that, again the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jeffery J.Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 183, having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:-
"16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice."
9. Ex facie the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner is an unmarried younger sister-in-law of the complainant and since the allegations levelled against her are vague & false, so, the complaint (Annexure P1) and impugned FIR (Annexure P3) are liable to be set aside, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
10. As is evident from the record, that very very serious and direct allegations are assigned to the present petitioner-accused No.3 in the complaint (Annexure P1), which formed the basis of impugned FIR (Annexure P3) that gold ear rings and an amount of ` 5000/- were also given to her at the time of marriage. An amount of ` 30,000/- was stated to have been spent by the parents of the CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -6- complainant at the time of ring ceremony. They gave sufficient dowry articles beyond their capacity at the time of marriage, but all the accused, including the petitioner, were not satisfied and demanded more dowry articles and cash of ` 2 lacs for purchase of a car. On her refusal, they gave severe beatings to her. There are also direct allegations against the petitioner that all the accused, including her, caught hold, threw down and started beatings to the complainant. Not only that, it has specifically been claimed in para 12 of the complaint (Annexure P1) that on 26.6.2009 while the complainant was cooking food, then accused No.1 and petitioner-accused No.3 entered in the kitchen, cut the pipe of gas cylinder, tried to lock the door of the kitchen in order to kill her and also by pouring kerosene. As luck would have been, she forcibly came out of the kitchen. Thereafter, they gave beatings to her very badly. Meaning thereby, the direct, very serious and specific allegations of commission of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner- accused No.3 that she also treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles and cash.
11. The celebrated contentions of learned counsel that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and false, there is no cogent evidence against her, it was the complainant, who created the entire trouble and other submissions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence (as now sought to be urged on her behalf), would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. If all such points, which require determination by the trial Court, are to be decided by this Court in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, then the sanctity of the trial would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not legally permissible.
12. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is CRM No. M-20101 of 2011 -7- reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained, are the functions of the trial Judge to do so. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Reliance in this connection can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another (2009) 2 SCC 147.
13. Therefore, the Bench mark set out in the aforesaid judgments and essential ingredients for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P3) at this initial stage are totally lacking in this case. Hence, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for petitioner "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
16. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.
23.4.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No