Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurvinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 February, 2011
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009
Date of decision: 10.2.2011
Gurvinder Kaur and others
......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioners namely, Gurvidner Kaur, Jagoop Singh and Sandeep Kaur for quashing of FIR No.57 dated 17.4.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Notice of motion was issued on 20th March, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is maternal aunt (Mami), petitioner No.2 is maternal uncle (Mama) of husband of the complainant whereas petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have been implicated falsely in the Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [2] case on the basis of false and vague allegations. A complaint was also made before the 'Women Cell' and the In-charge of 'Women Cell', Sirsa inquired into the matter and submitted report and allegations were found to be false. As per report of the 'Women Cell', the allegations with regard to demand of Rs.2 lacs as dowry were found to be baseless. Complainant Kamalpreet Kaur remained with her in-laws only for a short period as she was residing separately. The allegation that the husband of the complainant was having illicit relation with his maternal aunt were also found to be false in the inquiry although petitioners No. 1 and 2 were residing separately in Model Town, Bathinda and were not residing where the complainant was residing. The allegation with regard to abortion was also not proved in the inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the dispute was found to be between the complainant and her husband. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was also filed by the complainant on 25th September, 2007 whereas the present FIR was registered on 17th April, 2008. The complainant has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act at Talwandi Sabo against the petitioners and others and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also filed in the Court at Dabwali for maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the present petitioners have nothing to do with demand of dowry or any harassment for demand of dowry. Both petitioners No. 1 and 2 were Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [3] not residing with the complainant and no entrustment of dowry articles was there. Petitioner No.3 got married on 12th December, 2007 and she was residing in her matrimonial home after marriage and there was no question of any harassment, torture, maltreatment or interference in any manner.
Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant submit that specific allegations are there and it is also clear from the photograph annexed with the reply filed on behalf of the complainant that petitioner No.2 was quite active and in-charge of all affairs of the household activities and other ceremonies performed at the time of marriage. Specific allegations are there against petitioner No.1 as husband of the complainant was having illicit relation with her. Learned counsel for the Complainant also submits that husband of the complainant was residing with petitioners No. 1 and 2 as is clear from the address given in the memo of parties.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.
Admittedly, petitioner No.1 is maternal aunt and petitioner No.2 is maternal uncle of husband of the complainant. Petitioner No.3 is married sister-in-law of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner No.1 in connivance with petitioner No.2 got aborted the child of the complainant. This is also the allegation that petitioner No.1 in connivance with her husband asked the complainant to go to Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [4] hospital for sex determination of the foetus and on refusal, they misbehaved with the complainant. The allegation against petitioner No.3 was with regard to entrustment of one gold set at the time of marriage of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that a complaint was made before the 'Women Cell' and inquiry was conducted on the allegations levelled in the complaint. The relevant extract from the report is reproduced as under:
"............Kamalpreet Kaur has levelled allegations against her husband Mandeep Singh, father-in-law Gurjant Singh, mother-in-law Balwant Kaur, Nand Sandeep Kaur, Mami Gobinder Kaur and Mama Jagroop Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Model Town Bathinda regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2 lacs and also allegations of illicit relations of Mandeep Singh with his Mami Gobinder Kaur and also levelled allegations of forcible abortion of pregnancy. According to my enquiry and statements, the allegations of demand of Rs. 2 lacs as dowry have been found to be baseless. During the period when complainant Kamalpreet Kaur remained with her father-in-law Gurjant Singh and mother-in-law Balwant Kaur and Nand Sandeep Kaur in her in-laws house, the allegations of demand of dowry have not come in the inquiry and illicit relations of Mandeep Singh Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [5] with his Mami has also not been proved in the inquiry and allegations of demand of dowry by Gobinder Kaur and Jagoop Singh have also been found to be false during my enquiry because both are residing separately with their families in Model Town Bathinda and allegations levelled by Kamalpreet Kaur regarding her abortion has also not been proved in my inquiry and both Mandeep Singh and his wife Kamalpreet Kaur were residing in Bathinda and there was a dispute between both of them on domestic trifles. I hereby recommend for registration of FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC against husband Mandeep Singh."
It is also an admitted fact that the complainant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights on 25th September, 2007. The husband of the complainant filed a suit for Mandatory Injunction against her wife at Bathinda seeking direction to the complainant-wife to take her articles / marriage gifts from the husband as he was aware that he could be involved in some case of demand of dowry. During pendency of investigation of the said FIR, all dowry articles were recovered from the husband of the complainant. Complainant has also filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Talwandi Sabo. She also filed a petition under Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [6] Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court at Dabwali for maintenance. All these petitions were filed just to harass the petitioners and other family members, although allegations of forcible abortion are there which were found to be false in the inquiry report conducted by In- charge 'Women Cell' as the same have not been supported by any medical evidence. Petitioner No.3 is married sister-in-law but she has also been implicated in the case whereas she was not involved in any manner for demand of dowry or any harassment caused to the complainant in any manner. The petitioner No.3 was residing separately. The allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment were found to be false in the investigation conducted by 'Women Cell' and allegations with regard to abortion could not be proved and the 'Women Cell' only recommended for registration of case under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against husband only.
Time and again it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as various High Courts that there is always a tendency to implicate all the family members of her in-laws and even the distant relation whenever there is a matrimonial discord either out of vengeance or with a view to create pressure to achieve a suitable settlement. In the present case also, all the three petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant who are close relatives of husband of the complainant and false allegations have been levelled which could not be proved in the investigation conducted by the 'Women Cell'. This view has been supported in Saritha v. R.Ramachandra 2003(1) R.C.R.(Crl.) 481 as under: Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [7]
"It is for the Law Commission and the Parliament either to continue with provisions (Section 498-A IPC) in the same form or to make the offence a non-cognizable one and a bailable one so that the ill-educated women of this country and their parents do not misuse the provisions to harass innocent people for the sin of conducting marriage with egoistic women. We have no hesitation to hold that if this situation is continued in this manner, the institution of marriage and the principle of one man for woman will vanish into the air."
This view has further been supported in the judgment reported as Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab 2004(1) RCR (Cri.) 321 wherein the allegations were against the married sisters of the husband and other relatives who were residing separately and they were unnecessarily dragged into litigation whereas the dispute was between the complainant and her husband and FIR was quashed. Similarly, FIR was also quashed with regard to married sister-in-law in judgment reported as Ms.Anu Gill v. State 2002(1) R.C.R.(Crl.) 82 on the ground that sister-in-law was married and was residing separately and it was not believed that dowry articles were entrusted to her. It was also held that there is always a tendency on the part of the complainant to involve all the relations of the in-laws family. This view has also been supported by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others AIR Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [8] 2000 SC 2324.
Now the question for consideration in the case is whether this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case or not ? The scope and ambit of Courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been discussed in a number of cases. No-doubt, High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide but the same is to be exercised with great care and caution. The power is to be exercised for advancement of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases where the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has summarised some categories of cases as under:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [9]
(ii)where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;and
(iii)where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
Similarly in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others [1977]2 SCC 699 it has been held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when the Court comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that ends of justice require that proceedings should be quashed. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra [1977] 4 SCC 551 a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:
"..........In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court, or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. Such cases would necessarily be few and far between. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case would undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [10] the High Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the invoking of the revisional power of the High Court is impermissible."
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others 1988(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para No.7 as under:
" 7.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. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1991(1) Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [11] R.C.R.(Criminal) 383, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
"(1) 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.
(2)Where the allegations made 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 Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [12] 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 not 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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [13] wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited and others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 937 observed thus:
"It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation /continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
In view of the facts of the present case and the law position as explained above, I am of the considered view that it would be unfair to allow the proceedings to continue against the present petitioners as petitioners played no role with regard to demand of dowry or any harassment and have falsely been Crl.Misc. No. M- 7875 of 2009 [14] implicated in the case. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.57 dated 17.4.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the present petitioners.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 10, 2011 raghav