Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanju Bala And Another vs Poonam Bala And Another on 17 February, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Date of decision: 17.02.2014
1. CRM M 31513 of 2012
Sanju Bala and another ..........Petitioners
Versus
Poonam Bala and another .........Respondents
2. CRM M 8850 of 2013
Anju Bala and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Poonam Bala and another .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. H S Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioners (CRM M 31513 of 2012)
None for the petitioners (CRM M 8850 of 2013 )
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 1
Mr. Amarinder Singh Klar, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent State
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM M 31513 of 2012 and CRM M 8850 of 2013, as these are the offshoot of the same proceedings involving identical questions of law and facts, for adjudication.
Poonam Bala (Respondent No. 1 herein) has filed a private CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 2 complaint for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband, parents-in-law and several other family members of her husband and in all 14 persons have been arrayed as accused, on the allegations that they have failed to return the dowry articles entrusted to them for the personal use of the complainant, detailed in list Annexure A and she being subject to maltreatment and torture including beatings on account of demand of Rs.1.00 lac, in cash. In January 2010, she was given severe beatings by the accused and turned out of the matrimonial home with serious threats to eliminate her, in case, she returned to the matrimonial home without satisfying the demand of Rs.1.00 lac.
The learned trial Court, on appraisal of evidence adduced during preliminary enquiry, passed order dated 14.10.2011, summoning all the accused to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners Sanju Bala and Anju Bala are the real sisters of Rajesh Kumar and petitioners Gulshan Kumar and Deepak Kumar are the respective husbands of Sanju Bala and Anju Bala. The marriage of complainant Poonam Bala with Rajesh Kumar was performed on 24.10.2007. At that time, the petitioners were already married several years prior to the marriage of the complainant and they have been leading a happy married life in their respective matrimonial houses. Sanju Bala and Gulshan Kumar are residing at some distance from the matrimonial home of the complainant, though, they are the residents of Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. Anju Bala and Deepak Kumar were CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 3 married about 18 years prior to the marriage of the complainant and they have been living in Maloya Colony, Chandigarh since their marriage. It is argued with vehemence that the complainant brought forth general and vague allegations against all the persons arrayed as accused in a zeal to implicate the maximum numbers of relatives of Rajesh Kumar. The petitioners have nothing to do with the marital affairs of Poonam Bala and Rajesh Kumar and they have been falsely implicated in the crime. It is argued that two persons, namely, Gulshan Kumar and Sham Lal arrayed as accused at serial No. 7 and 8 respectively in the complaint, had already passed away before initiation of criminal proceedings and Neha Rani accused No. 9 expired during pendency of proceedings. According to counsel, the fact that some of the persons arrayed as accused had already left the world and no more alive goes a long way to show the mala fide intention of the complainant to indict as many persons as could be possible.
Counsel for respondent No. 1 is fair enough to concede that the respondent has levelled general allegations against the petitioners in regard to the complainant being subject to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. However, specific allegations have been levelled against Deepak Kumar, accused No. 12 in the complaint, that he is a police employee at Chandigarh and the accused are threatening that they will implicate the parents of the complainant in some false cases. Another submission made by counsel is that Rajesh Kumar, husband of Poonam Bala, has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce by giving his address of Chandigarh and the said address is the residential address of Anju Bala and Deepak Kumar. It is further submitted CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 4 that the complainant and the accused belong to lower middle class and the petitioners being the real sisters and brothers-in-law of Rajesh Kumar, have joined hands with Rajesh Kumar, his parents and others, to commit cruelty in connection with demand of Rs.1.00 lac, and the complainant is a victim of deep rooted conspiracy hatched by all the accused, which disentitle them to seek indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Before adverting to the submissions made by counsels, it is appropriate to recount certain observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in 'Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 45. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, on a detailed consideration of various judgments rendered from time-to-time and judgment in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, has recorded its conclusions in paras 28 to 35, usefully quoted hereinbelow:-
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 5 of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means:-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these 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 CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 6 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 CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 7 in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an 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. CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 8 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."
In para 33, the Court has put a word of caution that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties 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 entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
The impugned order, passed by the trial Court, issuing process against all the accused indicates non-application of mind and absence of consideration to the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), decided in August 2010.
The complainant has appended the list of dowry articles stated to be entrusted to different accused. Sanju Bala and Gulshan Kumar are stated to be entrusted with cash of Rs.501/- each, one suit each and one pair of gold ear rings to Sanju Bala and one Blanket to her husband Gulshan Kumar. Identical articles are stated to be entrusted to Anju Bala and CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 9 Deepak Kumar. It appears that these articles at best constitute customary gifts allegedly given to the petitioners. These articles by no stretch of imagination can be said to be articles of istridhan of the complainant to constitute offence under Section 406 IPC for the alleged failure of the petitioners to return these articles to the complainant.
Now coming to the allegations constituting offence under section 498-A IPC, the complainant has raised general, vague and omnibus allegations in regard to demand of Rs.1.00 lac and she being subject to harassment, maltreatment and beatings due to her failure to satisfy that demand. Sanju Bala and Anju Bala are the married sisters of Rajesh Kumar and their marriage was performed long before marriage of the complainant. There is no denial that the sisters are leading a happy married life in their respective matrimonial homes. Anju Bala and Deepak Kumar are residing in Maloya, Chandigarh, were married 18 years prior to marriage of complainant and Rajesh Kumar. The other petitioners Sanju Bala and Gulshan Kumar were married in the year 1987 and residing separately in their house in Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. The general and vague allegations set up by the complainant cannot form basis for summoning the petitioners to face criminal proceedings for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
Counsel for the respondent has submitted that Deepak Kumar is working in the police force and the accused extended threats that parents of the complainant would be implicated in false cases. Even if these allegations are accepted as correct, they do not constitute offence under Section 498-A IPC. Similarly, the factum of filing a divorce petition by Rajesh Kumar by giving address of petitioners Anju Bala and Deepak CRM M 31513 of 2012 and connected matter 10 Kumar, does not substantiate the allegations of the complainant that either these petitioners raised any demand of dowry or they caused harassment much less cruelty to the complainant in connection with the said demand of dowry. This apart, the petitioners, who are married for the last about twenty years and staying independently in their houses cannot be the beneficiaries even if the parents of the complainant had satisfied the alleged demand of Rs.1.00 lac.
The facts and circumstances of the present case when examined in the light of observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), I have no hesitation to conclude that it would be unfair to compel the petitioners to undergo rigmarole of criminal trial as they have been indicted in the crime just with an intent to implicate a large number of relatives of Rajesh Kumar.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petitions are allowed, criminal complaint No. 64 dated 06.07.2010 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 14.10.2011, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P6) and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
However, any observation made by this Court would be confined to the decision of the present petitions and have nothing to express any opinion regarding culpability of other persons arrayed as accused which would be for the trial Court to decide at an appropriate stage of the proceedings.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 17.02.2014 mohan