Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Kapoor And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 31 August, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 31.08.2012
Renu Kapoor and another ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate
for respondent No. 2
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RITU BAHRI , J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is for quashing of F.I.R No. 78 dated 17.07.2010 u/s 498-A/406/384 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar (P-1).
F.I.R has been registered by respondent No. 2/complainant Krishan Pal Bansal father of Savita Bansal (sister-in-law of petitioners) Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -2- against 6 persons of her in-laws family including the petitioners. Savita Bansal (daughter of the complainant) was married to Rajiv Mehta (brother of petitioner No. 1) on 30.10.2003. Petitioner No. 1 is married sister in law of Savita Bansal and petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1. The ring ceremony of Savita Bansal was performed at Hotel Dolphin Jalandhar on 30.07.2003 in which all the accused persons including the relative, family members, friends consisting of 25 persons participated from the side of the accused persons. In the ring ceremony, the complainant has given gold ornaments, cash amount, valuable clothes, television, air conditioner, other costly articles, sweet and fruits to the accused persons namely Renu Kapoor and Meenu Walia sisters of Rajiv Mehta. Thereafter, the marriage of Savita Bansal with Rajive Mehta was solemnized on 30.10.2003 in which various gold, diamond ornaments, clothes, cash were given to the above said accused persons and their relatives. Thereafter, Savita Bansal was being harassed for bringing of less dowry. Thereafter, the complainant along with his son Rajiv Bansal went to Delhi where all the accused persons were present and they insulted and abused the applicant and his son by saying that the applicant had not given dowry, cash, gold ornaments as expected by them. However, in order to rehabilitate Savita Bansal at their house, applicant and his son gave Rs. 50,000/- to Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Kasturi Lal Mehta against the demand of Rs. 25 lacs raised by them. Thereafter, Rajiv Mehta went to Holland and Savita Bansal also joined him on 30.11.2003 on getting a visa. However, she was sent back to New Delhi. Upon reaching Delhi at her in laws house, her father-in- law, sister-in-law, Renu Kapoor, Meenu Walia and their husbands started maltreating, torturing Savita Bansal and forced her to bring more dowry and cash from her parents. In the meantime, Rajiv Mehta shifted to U.K from Holland on getting new assignments in the year 2005. Thereafter, the complainant again sent her daughter to U.K in the month of October, 2005. However, Rajiv Mehta again started maltreating, torturing Savita Bansal to fetch more money in the shape of dowry from the complainant. Savita Bansal gave a birth to female child on 17.08.2006 in U.K and immediately on birth of female child, Rajiv Mehta started taunting the daughter of the complainant that she has brought another liability for them. In December 2007, the complainant manage to get Rs. 3 lacs and handed over the said cash amount to Kasturi Lal Mehta in New Delhi. Later on Kasturi Lal Mehta got a visa for U.K and went to U.K in June, 2008. Thereafter, Rajiv Mehta and Kasturi Lal Mehta (father-in-law of Savita Bansal) again started torturing her daughter-in-law. The complainant again paid Rs. 2 lacs in the month of 30.10.2009 to Renu Kapoor and her husband at Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Newl Delhi and Renu Kapoor advised the complainant to pay the balance amount by way of installments in the next week. On 06.11.2009, the applicant paid Rs. 2 lacs to Renu Kapoor and she after counting the said amount handed over to her husband Rajiv Kapoor. On 08.11.2009, the complainant again gave Rs. 1 lac to Renu Kapoor and her husband at Jalandhar. Thereafter, Rajiv Mehta and his father came back to Delhi from U.K. The complainant was compelled to arrange Rs. 5 lacs to save the married life of his daughter. In December, 2009, the complainant gave Rs. 5 lacs in Jalndhar to Rajiv Mehta and his father. In January, 2010 both Rajiv Mehta and his father returned to U.K and again started maltreating the daughter of the complainant to receive the balance amount. On 13.02.2010, Savita Bansal was slapped, beaten up and thrown out of her matrimonial home by her husband and father-in-law. In the above background, the present F.I.R has been registered by the complainant.
Vide order dated 27.09.2010, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar granted anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. The petitioners are now seeking quashing of the above said F.I.R and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua them.
Mr. G.B.S Dhillon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that as per the allegations levelled against the Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -5- present petitioners, there is no entrustment of dowry articles to the present petitioners. The allegations are vague. The petitioners were married on 24.09.1990 i.e much before the marriage of the complainant's daughter and were residing separately at Delhi since the day of the marriage of the petitioners. Savita Bansal after getting married to Rajiv Mehta went to Holland and then to England on 30.11.2003 and is staying there since then. The present petitioners have nothing to do with the family affairs of the complainant and her husband and they are not going to be benefited with the dowry as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioners are staying in a different house and at a distance place from the complainant's daughter and her husband, so the question of interfering, demanding dowry on the part of the petitioners does not arise. The allegations against the present petitioner are that they have been given Rs. 2 lacs in the month of 30.10.2009, Rs. 2 lacs again on 06.11.2009 and Rs. 1 lac again on 08.11.2009 at Jalandhar by the complainant on the pretext of dowry. These allegations against the present petitioners cannot be accepted as the amount was given after 6 years of the marriage of the daughter of the complainant and the present petitioners were not going to be benefitted from the alleged dowry. Savita Bansal gave a birth to female child on 17.08.2006 in U.K and the demand as per the Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -6- allegations in the F.I.R was made on 30.10.2009, 6.11.2009 and 08.11.2009 i.e after a gap of three year and in these 3 years, the complaint's daughter was living with her husband in U.K and whatever the differences arose between the couple, the present petitioners had no role to play in their matrimonial house. There is no payment of any amount alleged in the F.I.R since the date of marriage of Rajiv Mehta with Savita Bansal on 30.10.2003. The first payment which is alleged to have been made on 30.10.2009 is before the registration of the present F.I.R which was being lodged on 17.07.2010. The allegations are baseless.
Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that after presentation of the challan, charges have been framed against the present petitioners on 19.10.2011 and now the case is at the stage of recording evidence (R- 2/1) and the present petitioners have not chosen to file any revision against the order framing charges. A thorough enquiry was conducted before lodging of the present F.I.R and thereafter, the challan was presented. He further submits that specific roles have been attributed to the petitioners regarding payment of money under presssure which they have exhorted from the complainant.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG Punjab learned State counsel adopts Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -7- the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2006(4) R.C.R (Criminal)
322. It is not disputed that the petitioners were married on 24.09.1990 i.e much before the marriage of the complainant's daughter and were residing separately at Delhi since the day of the marriage of the petitioners. At the time of ring ceremony and marriage certain articles, gifts, gold, cash were given. After marriage, Savita Bansal had joined her husband in Holland on 30.11.2003 on getting a visa. Petitioner No. 1 was residing separately could not be entrusted with the gifts, gold, cash which were given at the time of marriage and ring ceremony by the complainant. More so since the date of the their marriage till October, 2009 there is no allegation that any cash was entrusted to the petitioners on account of bringing less dowry. A female child was born to the couple on 17.08.2006 in U.K. Thereafter, the relationship between the couple deteriorated in U.K and the allegations against the present petitioners of maltreating, torturing the complainant's daughter on account of bringing less dowry is seriously Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -8- doubted. The allegations against the present petitioner are that they have been given Rs. 2 lacs in the month of 30.10.2009, Rs. 2 lacs again on 06.11.2009 and Rs. 1 lac again on 08.11.2009 at Jalandhar by the complainant on the pretext of dowry, is no believable as after a gap of six year this amount cannot believed to be given to the petitioners as they were not going to be benefitted from the alleged payment of dowry. While framing the charges on 19.10.2011 under Section 406 IPC, it is alleged that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the dowry articles and istrhi dhan of the complainant's daughter Savita Bansal which was being entrusted to her for her exclusive use. They have been charged under Section 498-A IPC Both these allegations as per the details given in the F.I.R are liable to be quashed against the present petitioners. The complainant's daughter after her marriage with Rajive Mehta on 30.10.2003 had left for Holland on 30.11.2003 and thereafter, she stayed with him in U.K and gave birth to a female child on 17.08.2006 and the F.I.R does not alleged that during all this time, there was any demand of dowry by the present petitioners. The allegations levelled against the present petitioners on face can be general in nature. However, one thing which requires to be examined is that after Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -9- presentation of the challan and framing of charge whether the present F.I.R and subsequent proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code by this Court. The present petition was filed in January, 2011 and during the pendency of the petition, charges have been framed. In the case of Divya alias Babli's (supra), this Court has held that after presentation of the challan and after going through the facts of the case, there is no bar to quash the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.
In the facts of the present case, as per the allegations levelled against them, no case is made out against them.
Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 68 (SC) was a case in which Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place and observed that there was bald allegations to rope in a many relations of the husband.
Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 745 had considered the issue of striking down Section 498- A IPC had sprouted, their lordships observed that in such type of cases the "action" and not the "section" may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -10- decision and grant appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing with the dowry menace, however, observed in para No. 17 as under:-
"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -11- unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -12- cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
Reference has further been made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR (Crl) 761 (SC) in which their lordships have observed as under:-
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused."
Taking into consideration all the facts and Crl. Misc. No. M-600 of 2011 (O&M) -13- circumstances of the instant case and following the judgment of Sushil Kumar Sharma's case(supra), the present petition is allowed.
Accordingly, F.I.R No. 78 dated 17.07.2010 u/s 498- A/406/384 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar (P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
31.08.2012 G.Arora