Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 September, 1989
Equivalent citations: I(1990)DMC233
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of criminal complaint filed by Veena Rani, respondent No. 2, the summoning order dated 22-11-1988, and further proceedings taken on the basis of the said complaint.
2. According to the allegations in the complaint, marriage between Veena Rani and her husband Harish Kumar was solemnized on 29-5-85 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites. Out of the said wedlock one daughter namely Dimpi was born on 12-4-1986 who is residing with the complainant. It was further pleaded that at the time of solemnization of the marriage articles mentioned in Annexure 'A' which constituted Istri-Dhan of the complainant were entrusted to all the accused (including the present petitioners) with a clear understanding that the same will be handed over to the complainant on reaching her matrimonial home. The accused who are greedy persons and were not satisfied with the articles of dowry started coercing the complainant-wife in order to extract more dowry and valuable articles. It was further alleged that in the month of June and July 1985 all the accused directed the complainant to bring VCR, Scooter and Rs. 50,000/- in cash from her parents, but, the complainant refused to do so. All the accused maltreated and gave her beatings on several occasions. She was not provided with food and maltreated with the sole aim of harassing her and also pressurised her for extracting the aforesaid articles including item of cash, from the parents of the complainant. The accused in pursuance of their conspiracy took the complainant in a jeep in the month of December, 1985 and left her in front of the house of her parents, inspite of the fact that actual delivery was to take place in the month of April, 1986. On 12-4-1986 the complainant gave birth to a female child but the behaviour of the accused was too inhuman and callous that they never came and cared to enquire about the health of the complainant and infant child. On a telephonic message, all the accused reached Ludhiana and started quarrelling with the complainant and her father. They again repeated their demand as indicated above. The father of the complainant showed his inability not to fulfill the demands of the accused-party. The father of the complainant and other relations assured the accused to fulfill their demands. On this assurance the complainant and her daughter Dimpi were brought by the accused to Jalandhar. Thereafter when the demands of the accused were not fulfilled by the father of the complainant, the complainant and her minor daughter were dropped by them in front of the house of her father and they again repeated demands of scooter, VCR and cash of Rs. 50.000/.
3. Counsel for the parties were heard.
4. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that there are no specific allegations concerning entrustment of specific articles of dowry to any specific accused.
5. As held in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rai Scindia and Anr. etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. etc., 1988 Criminal Appeals Reporter 121 (SC), the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. No prima facie case as far as charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 106 I.P.C. is made out against any of the petitioners.
6. As far as the allegation concerning commission of offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. are concerned, there are consistent allegations against the accused-petitioners that they along with Harish Kumar husband of the complainant wife, harassed, maltreated and acted towards the complainant with cruelty in order to pressurise her to bring scooter, VCR and Rs. 50.000/- in cash from her parents. Both petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in Jalandhar city in which the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant-wife reside.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited authorities of this Court in Rai Singh v. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 647 as well as Single Bench authority of this Court in case Shori Lal and Ors. v. Smt. Nisha and Anr., 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 276 and Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989 (1) Recent Criminal Report 278, wherein on peculiar facts and circumstances in the said cases, it was held that no offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was made out against the relations of the husband. The facts of the afore-cited authorities are entirely different from the one in the case in hand. The afore-cited three authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case in band and are clearly distinguishable.
8. It was also submitted that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the allegations concerning the commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. which relate to Jalandhar city. No objection concerning territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Ludhiana was raised even when the said case was transferred under the orders of the High Court to Phagwara. Even otherwise, as provided under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial, or, proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate cannot be set aside unless, and until, it had occasioned a failure of justice.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is partly allowed to the extent that no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner and as such the complaint with regard to the said offence against the accused-petitioners, is directed to be quashed. However, the trial Court would proceed against Harish Kumar respondent under Section 406 I.P.C. and against the petitioners and Harish Kumar respondent, as far as commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is concerned, according to law. It is-further clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall in any manner be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 24-10-1989. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court forthwith.