Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Pal @ Ram Lal And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 5 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: I(1991)DMC253
JUDGMENT J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners, seek the quashment of F.I.R. No. 278 of 26-9-1989 for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 406 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Kalanwal District Sirsa, mainly on the ground of vagueness of the allegations there in regarding entrustment of property and maltreatment.
2. The brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the first information report is that the marriage of Sham Murari, co-accused of the petitioner, resident of Mansa Mandi was performed according to Hindu religious rights with Smt. Murti Devi complainant about 12 years ago. Ram Pal alias Ram Lal is younger brother of aforesaid Sham Murari while Dwarki Devi is his mother. The petitioners being not satisfied with the dowry, started maltreating Murti Devi complainant and asked her to fetch Rs. 15,000/-more by way of dowry. The complainant expressed her inability due to poverty of her parents, which resulted in giving her severe beating by all these accused persons on 7-4-1989 and turning her out of the inlaws house. Madan Lal, brother of the complainant, however, got the matter settled through the intervention of the police as the husband of the petitioner had undertaken to treat her nicely, but again all the accused started maltreating and taunting the complainant. She continued tolerating it due to her helplessness. The accused thereafter put up another demand of Rs. 15,000/-. Ultimately the brother of the complainant gave two gold bangles of his wife and Rs. 5,000/- to all these three accused-persons on the undertaking that they will treat her nicely. But ten days thereafter all the accused again started demanding another Rs. 10,000/-. On the complainant's failure to fulfil their demand, all the accused-persons turned her out of the house on the morning of 5-6-1989, after giving her slaps, fists and kick blows. The brother and other relations of the complainant tried to persuade the accused-persons to rehabilitate the complainant but they refused to keep her unless they paid Rs. 10,000/-. Under these circumstances, the brother of the complainant had no alternative but to take her to his house in Kalanwali. A day before lodging this report, the brothers of the complainant along with other respectables again tried to persuade the accused to rehabilitate the complainant and offered to give Rs. 5000/- but the accused remained adamant that they will do so on getting Rs. 10,000/-. It is further averred that certain articles given in dowry were misappropriated by the petitioners, i.e., her mother-in-law and her husband's younger brother. Earlier, the complainant had also filed civil suit for maintenance in Court but it ended in a compromise after the husband had tendered an unqualified apology.
3. In this petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the first information report, inter alia, on the ground that they are residing separately from Sham Murari, husband of the complainant, and a notice of this fact was got published on 11-7-1987 in Daily Newspaper Jagwani Jullundur. It is also averred that the allegations regarding entrustment of the property are vague and that Smt. Dwarka Devi did not accompany the marriage party of Sham Murari and that there was no entrustment of the property to her. It was also maintained that the entire incident took place at Mansa. The police of Police Station Kalanwali in District Sirsa of Haryana State had no jurisdiction to register or investigate the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.
5. Admittedly, the case is still under investigation and the relations between the parties got strained on account of the complainant having brought less dowry on the occasion of her marriage which took place 12 years prior to the registration of the case, i.e., somewhere in the year 1977. Under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the present petitioners had got published the notice dated 11-7-1987 (Annexure P. 1) in the Daily Newspaper Jagwani in order to save themselves from the legal consequences of the strained relations between the complainant and her husband Sham Murari. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioners are carrying on business at Mansa. Thus, they must be maintaining regular accounts in the usual course of business. Strangely enough, they had not appended copy of those accounts in order to show that they had separated their business from aforesaid Sham Murari, husband of the complainant. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are residing separately from Sham Murari and that they had no motive to maltreat the complainant or misappropriate her stridhan.
6. About the vagueness of the allegations regarding the entrustment of property, it transpires that as Smt. Dwarki Devi, mother-in-law is residing jointly with her son Sham Murari, husband of the complainant, it would be presumed that stridhan was entrusted to her if not at the time of the marriage, then at the time the bride reached her in-laws house and started residing jointly with them. However, it can be well said that the allegation regarding entrustment of stridhan to Ram Pal, younger brother of Sham Murari, are vague, but this is of no consequence at this stage, especially when the allegations that the complainant was turned out of her in-laws house on the morning of 5-6-1989 after giving her slaps, fists and kick blows by the petitioners along with their co-accused Sham Murari are very specific. The factum that the medico-legal report dated 5-6-1989 of the complainant was produced at the time of lodging the first information report further renders due assurance to the version of the complainant. Thus, at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations in this regard are vague.
7. On the point of jurisdiction, it transpires that the articles of dowry were entrusted at Kalanwali when the marriage took place and the petitioners are expected to return these dowry articles to her at her parents house in village Kalanwali where she is at present residing. According to Subsection (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused-persons. Thus, at this stage it cannot be said that the property was not received at Kalanwali and that it was not required to be returned at village Kalanwali where the complainant at present resides. Thus, without completion of investigation, it cannot be said that the police of P.S. Kalanwali had no jurisdiction to investigate the case. Moreover, at the most it would amount to an irregularity under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the petitioners had failed to show whether any prejudice had been caused to them due to the investigation or enquiry conducted by the police of Police Station, Kalanwali.
Anyhow, after the completion of investigation if the challan is submitted in Court, then the trial Court is bound to apply its mind to all the above referred aspects of the matter while framing the charge against the accused.
Under these circumstances, this petition seems to be premature and is disposed of as such.