Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaushalya Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 May, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.5.2013
Kaushalya Devi and others
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana
Mr.Atul Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.21 dated 27.1.2010 under Section 498-A/ 406/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Pataudi District Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition qua petitioners No.4 and 5.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as petitioners No. 1 to 3 are concerned, they were married sisters-in- Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 2 laws of respondent No. 2 and were residing in their matrimonial homes. No specific allegations had been levelled against the said petitioners in the FIR.
Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition qua petitioners No.1 to 3 deserves to be allowed.
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 Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 aggrieved party.Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 4
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." 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 6 every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived 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 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."
Admittedly, petitioners No.1 to 3 are the married sister-in- laws of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 had got married about 22 years ago, whereas, petitioner No.2 had got married about 18 years ago and petitioner No.3 had got married about 5 years ago and were residing in their matrimonial homes since then. Respondent No.2 got married to Harpal, brother of petitioners No.1 to 3 on 11.5.2005. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioners No.1 to 3. It appears that Criminal Misc. No.M-13248 of 2010 (O&M) 7 petitioners No.1 to 3 have been involved in this case merely because of their relationship with the husband of respondent No.2. There is a 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 petitioners No.1 to 3 would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.21 dated 27.1.2010 under Section 498-A/ 406/ 506/ 34 IPC registered at Police Station Pataudi District Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners No.1 to 3, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 16, 2013 anita