Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkeet Singh And Others vs Vidya Rani And Another on 6 December, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006
Date of Decision:December 06, 2012
Malkeet Singh and others ..........Petitioners
Versus
Vidya Rani and another ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr.G.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Kainth,Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the complaint dated 24.12.2002 under Sections 406,498-A,306,506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') (Annexure P3) and summoning order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P4) along with all consequential proceedings arising thereto .
The case of the complainant, as per complaint (Annexure P3), in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Amarjeet Singh on 05.12.1999. At the time of her marriage, her parents had spent about ` 2.75 lacs. The parents of Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 2 the complainant had given dowry more than their capacity to the accused. However, accused were not satisfied with the dowry given to them by the parents of the complainant. Complainant and her husband were leading a happy married life but the petitioners used to taunt the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry. Complainant was given beating by the petitioners on 14.10.2000 and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Father of the complainant gave ` 5000/- in cash to the petitioners. The husband of the complainant was got admitted in the hospital at Sirsa as he had consumed poison on account of ill-treatment meted by the petitioners to her. Petitioners demanded ` 25000/- for the treatment of the husband of the complainant. With great difficulty, father of the complainant arranged for ` 25000/- and the said amount was handed over to the petitioners for treatment of the husband of the complainant. On 20.10.2002, complainant was given beating by the petitioners and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Amarjeet Singh died on 29.10.2002 . At the funeral ceremony, the petitioners showed regrets qua the treatment meted out to the complainant as the complainant along with her family members were going to the Police Station to lodge a report against the petitioners. At that time, petitioner No.3 agreed that he would marry his younger son- Avtar Singh with the complainant after one and a half months of the completion of funeral ceremony. Petitioners had not returned all the dowry articles to the complainant. The marriage of the complainant was not performed with Avtar Singh. Hence,the complaint was filed.
Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 3
The complainant led her preliminary evidence in support of her case. The trial Court, vide order dated 7.7.2006, (Annexure P4), did not order the summoning of the petitioners under Section 306 IPC and Sections 4,6 and 8 of the Act. However, the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
It has been held in 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, 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.Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 4
(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 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 5 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 complaint reveals that the complainant was leading a happy married life with her husband-Amarjeet Singh. Amarjeet Singh unfortunately died on 29.10.2002. Annexure P1/T is the Panchayatnama duly signed by the respondents. The said Panchayatnama was executed on 09.11.2002. As per the said Panchayatnama, respondent had received all the dowry articles in the presence of the Panches of both the villages- Lohgarh and Rania. The respondent had, prima-facie, failed to establish that the petitioners had committed offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Since the respondent had already received all the dowry articles before the Panchayat members on 9.11.2002, no offence under Section 406 IPC can be said to be made out in the present Crl. Misc. M No. 77505 of 2006 6 case. With regard to the allegations i.e. demand of dowry etc., the respondent had not filed any complaint before the death of her husband. Further a perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the complaint in question had been filed by the respondent merely because her marriage was not performed with the younger brother of her husband.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure P4) is quashed . Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 06, 2012 arya