Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Wati And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 August, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 31, 2010
Prem Wati and others ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ........Respondents
******
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.194 dated 21.12.2005, under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
The contents of the FIR as reproduced in para 3 of the petition read as under :-
".........I, Sheela Devi d/o Sh. Gumani Lal, Vill. Bhindawas, Teh. & District Jhajjar, affidavit is as under :-
1. That I am permanent resident of above mentioned address.
2. That my marriage was solemnized on 27th February, 2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. My father has spent more than his status. For about 1 year and 10 months I lived there happily. Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 2
During that period I was harassed a lot. During that period a boy was in my womb. During that time my mother-in-law & sister-in- law used abusive language against me and said that my brother is a sepoy in Delhi Police, what your father has given. I was troubled and harassed a lot. Sometimes I was also beaten.
3. That after which I was told to buy a plot in Delhi and to bring money from him. When I was harassed then I told my father, he came to know in front of him all these three people Premwati w/o Harcharan, Neetu Devi, Sarita Devi d/o Haricharan, Santosh w/o Satpal, Vill. Khera Dabas (Delhi) said about money. My father said that I am a poor man I am not having any money, but they threatened that girl will be left on which my father promised to give money within 10 days. I came back after 8 days and gave Rs.40,000/- but their demand kept on rising and I was harassed and beaten. After that boy was born with operation. After many days I came to home, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law said that you not died, my father in chuchak spent Rs.42000/-. As things were said all were given. My mother-in-law was given food and 5 kg ghee separately which was eaten by all and I was given nothing. After two months they said about money which I refused that my father is not having money. During that period I was given knife blows, scar of which are still there and I was threatened that if I ever told these things to anybody then I and my child will be killed and when I was in hospital then my father, uncles, Panch & Sarpanch and some elderly people of the village came there, I refused to any anything in front of them and Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 3 persuaded them to go back. After that my sister-in-law and mother-in-law both given me some medicine etc. with food and I got made and I lost my conscious. My mother-in-law phoned my father that your gild has gone made, you take her. My father reached at 3.30 in the evening and after taking taxi on hire from Jaffarpur took me along with him and nobody from the home came with me. My father after so much running around got my medication from private Dr. S.K.Gupta, Rohtak and spent more than Rs.22,000/-. During that two months nobody asked about my well being. Whether I am dead or alive and when I got some better on 23.10.2005 I went to my matrimonial home along with my father. These three people came at 3.00 in evening on scooter and me and my father were sitting in front of their house. All there after opening the door went inside and then Santosh also reached at the spot and when we reached inside then all three gave beatings to me and my father and used abusive language and thrown me out of the house and my father on hired car reached home at 10 p.m.
5. That after that threatening calls were given and also told that don't come to our home we will kill you because she is step mother and neither she is her sister, he has been brought by his friend mother. She has died. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law wants to grab all my rights, as after that being harassed I lodged a complaint regarding dowry on 14.11.2005 in Woman Cell, which was fixed for 25 but only one man was present and along with him Lal Singh, r/o Vill. Lihaspur, Bhagat Singh & Anil Kumar Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 4 who came alongwith my husband. Next date fixed was 1.12.2005. Inspector of Woman Cell said this to 5 & 6 more people, uncles and elderly people.
6. That on 1st date along with village panchayat, uncles, lambardar and some elderly people I went there, brought nobody only those two people namely Lal sigh & Bharat Sigh. He was persuaded in Woman Cell and I and my husband talked about for 2 hours and the matter was compromised that on 15.12.2005 he will take me to his home and keep her well and will talk to my sister and aunty on which Lal Singh & Bharat Singh shown their anger and said that this is not right and all these three went on motor-cycle and we on our tractor to our homes. In the intervening night of 1 & 2 at about 2 A.M. killed himself by eating some pills. We were not informed about this. We came to know on 4th then I alongwith 10-12 ladies and 10-12 gents went there then my mother-in-law used abusive language and brought with us but we did not fight and came back to our homes. Sd/- Sheela Devi."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petition qua petitioner no.3 has been rendered infructuous as challan has not been presented against her.
Accordingly, the petition qua petitioner no.3 is dismissed as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners No.1 and 2 has submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1 under Section 306 IPC Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 5 against the complainant Sheela Devi qua abetment of suicide committed by Anil Kumar son of petitioner No.1 and husband of the complainant. In the suicide note (Annexure P-3), it had been stated by the deceased that he was committing suicide due to harassment met out to him by his wife and her family members.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that complaint qua demand of dowry and harassment to the complainant was made before the Women Cell on 14.11.2005. Anil Kumar, husband of the complainant, had committed suicide much thereafter. Hence, it would not be said that the allegations levelled in the FIR were an after thought and were a counter blast to the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1 against the complainant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 6 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 FIR 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 FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 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 the 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 proceedings and/or where there is specific Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 7 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
A perusal of the FIR reveals that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Anil Kumar on 27.2.2003. Thereafter, the complainant was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. A perusal of the FIR further reveals that on 14.11.2005 a complaint had been filed by the complainant regarding demand of dowry against her in laws. On 25.11.2005 only Anil Kumar alongwith some other persons had appeared and the case was adjourned to 1.12.2005. A compromise was effected between the parties and it was agreed that on 15.12.2005 Anil Kumar would take the complainant to the matrimonial home. However, on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd December, 2005, the husband of the complainant committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note, as per which the deceased had Crl. Misc. No. M- 52984 of 2006 (O&M) 8 committed suicide on account of harassment meted to him by complainant Sheela Devi and her family members. A perusal of the FIR also leads to the inference that a complaint had already been filed by the complainant qua harassment meted out to her on account of demand of dowry. Hence, it can not be said that the FIR was lodged on false allegation of harassment meted out to the complainant on account of demand of dowry after the case was registered against her under Section 306 IPC.
Although, in the present case the FIR was lodged on 21.12.2005 i.e. after the registration of FIR against the complainant under Sections 306/34 IPC, but the complaint of the complainant qua harassment meted out to her on account of demand of dowry was pending with the Women Cell.
In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to quash the FIR at this stage.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)
August 31, 2010 JUDGE
Anand