Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.4.2013.
Paramjit Kaur and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No. 2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the FIR No. 94 dated 1.7.2009 under Section 406, 498-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the married sisters-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 3 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were residing in their matrimonial home since the date of their marriage. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had been married in the year 1988 and 1995 respectively whereas the complainant got married to their brother on 19.3.2006. Petitioners had been falsely involved in this case merely because of their Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -2- relationship with the husband of the complainant. General and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. In the case of 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/respondent No.2, 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -3- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -4- 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."
In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
The Apex Court in the case of 'Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India and others', 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 745, has held as under:-
"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy (ignominy?) 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -5- 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 framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an 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 presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watchdog Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -6- and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many 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."
A perusal of the FIR Annexure P-1 reveals that general allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It has been stated in the petition that petitioner No. 1 had got married in the year 1988 and was residing in village Raipur Khurd, Tehsil and District Mohali. Petitioner No. 2 had got married to petitioner No. 3 in the year 1995 and was residing in village Salani, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Respondent No. 2 had got married to Ram Singh alias Narinder Singh brother of petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 19.3.2006. The matrimonial home of respondents No. 2 is in village Rampur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. Thus, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were married much before the marriage of respondent no. 2 with the brother of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and they are residing in their matrimonial home. General allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. It appears that the petitioners have been involved in this case merely because of their relationship with the husband of the complainant. There is general tendency that when a matrimonial dispute arises, the wife or her relatives involve all the relatives of the husband in criminal litigation to pressurize them. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against Crl. Misc. No. M-1527 of 2012 (O&M) -7- the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 94 dated 1.7.2009 under Section 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE April 30, 2013 Gurpreet