Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmohan Singh And Others vs Sudarshana Rani on 4 September, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M No. 81017 of 2006
Date of Decision:September 04, 2012
Manmohan Singh and others ..........Petitioners
Versus
Sudarshana Rani ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of the complaint dated 8.8.2003 (Annexure P2) and summoning order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P3) along with all consequential proceedings arising thereto .
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 had faced trial under Sections 304-B, 315, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) . Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced qua the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 315 IPC and they have undergone the sentence. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced qua the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC by the trial Court but was acquitted by this Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 2 Court in appeal. The trial of petitioner No.4 was sent to Juvenile Court. Since the petitioners No. 1 to 3 had already faced the trial, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners were liable to be quashed. Petitioner No.1-Manmohan Singh, husband of deceased-Reeta Kumari daughter of the complainant had inherited the property owned by his wife being her sole legal heir. The complaint had been filed after a long delay..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Azad Singh vs. State of Haryana 2003(3) Crl.C.C.13 wherein it has been held as under:-
"This Court, after hearing conunsel for the parties is of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed. It is apparent from the records and not controverted by the counsel opposite that death of Smt. Sushila had occurred on 3.10.1990. Petitioners were booked under Section 304-B of 498-A IPC vide FIR No. 285 dated 12.10.1990. Father of the deceased remained mum and after a gap of about two years, present FIR was got registered against the petitioners. It seems that, may be out of sheet frustration and may be with a view to get revenge for the death of her daughter, present FIR was recorded against the petitioners. Contention of Shri Nalwa that after death of her wife, husband is entitled to retain her property, finds support from the judgment cited by him in case of Mangat Ram (supra). A single Bench of this Court, after discussing facts of that Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 3 case, opined as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the facts as mentioned in the complaint are taken on their face value, no offence under Section 406 IPC will be made out. His contention is that father of the deceased girl cannot claim the estate of his married daughter after her death, and retention of the dowry items by the husband will not amount to commission of offence under Section 406 IPC. He has relied upon Ajit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1983 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 116, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"It seems that the attention of the learned trial Magistrate was not drawn towards section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which provides for general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. The said section provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband. In the absence of the aforesaid category of heirs, the property would thus go to the Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 4 heirs provided in clauses secondly to lastly of sub section (1) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The non-obstante clauses in sub-section (2) of Section 15 would, in the instant case, be not applicable for the dowry gifts received by Satinder Kaur were not in the nature of property inherited by her from her father and, thus, the succession would confine only within sub section (1) of Section 15, according to the rules set out in section 16. Rule (1) thereof provides that, among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry, shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Now here, in the absence of the sons and daughters, or the children of any pre-deceased son of daughter of Satinder Kaur, her husband alone was entitled to her estate. This was not a case of searching for heirs of Class I in the Schedule as has been done by the learned trial Magistrate, for that Schedule too has to operate with the aid of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which provides for general rules of succession in the case of males. The view taken by the learned Magistrate in this regard is obviously faulty and deserves to be set aside"
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 5 despite service.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed.
Respondent-Sudarshana Rani has filed the complaint against the petitioners and Sushma under Sections 406, 506 IPC and 3,4,5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961( for short `the Act'). A perusal of the complaint (Anneuxre P2) reveals that the complainant has alleged that her daughter-Reeta Kumari got married to Manmohan Singh- petitioner No.1 on 19.2.1999. Reeta Kumari was harrased by her husband and his family members after her marriage and she died unnatural death on 20.6.1999. The dowry articles given at the time of marriage of the daughter of the complainant had been misappropriated by the accused.
In support of her complaint, complainant-respondent
-Sudarshana Rani led her preliminary evidence. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P3) ordered the summoning of the accused under Section 406 IPC.
Anneuxre P1 is the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.950-SB of 2002. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the petitioners and Sushma Rani had faced the trial under Sections 304-B, 315, 498-A IPC in FIR No. 111 dated 20.6.1999 registered at Police Station Kahnuwan. The trial Court vide judgment dated 30.4.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of petitioners No. 2 and 3- Kishan Singh and Bachni. They were convicted and sentenced qua the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 315 Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 6 IPC. So far as petitioner No.1-Manmohan Singh is concerned, he was convicted qua commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Accused- Sushma Rani was acquitted by the trial Court of the charges framed against her. So far as petitioner No.4
-Jhankar Singh is concerned, his trial was separated and was sent to Juvenile Court. This Court upheld the conviction and sentence of petitioners No. 2 and 3-Kishan Singh and Bachni qua commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B and 315 IPC and appeal qua them was dismissed, whereas, petitioner No.1-Manmohan Singh was acquitted of the charges framed against him and, thus, appeal qua him was allowed. Since petitioners had already faced the trial with regard to the unnatural death of Reeta Kumari, daughter of the complainant under Sections 304-B, 315, 498-A IPC, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent under Section 406 IPC would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. In case, there was any grievance available to the complainant with regard to misappropriation of dowry articles, the petitioners were liable to be tried qua the said offence in FIR No. 111 dated 20.6.1999 registered at Police Station Kahnuwan. Further so far as Manmohan Singh- petitioner No.1, husband of deceased- Reeta Kumari is concerned, he has been acquitted by this Court of the charges framed against him. Thus, he being the sole legal heir of Reeta Kumari inherited her property after her death. In these circumstances, the complaint filed by respondent qua misappropriation of dowry articles given by her to her daughter is not maintainable. The complainant has not disclosed in the complaint Crl.Misc.M No.81017 of 2006 7 that the accused were facing trial in FIR No. 111 dated 20.6.1999. The complaint (Annexure P2) was filed in the year 2003 after a long delay. Moreover by that time, the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.4.2002 had already been delivered. Even the said fact has not been disclosed in the complaint (Annexure P2). In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance to the complaint (Anneuxre P2) are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint dated 8.8.2003 (Annexure P3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P3) are quashed.
(Sabina) Judge September 04, 2012 arya