Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Singh vs Harpreet Kaur on 18 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: II(1996)DMC194, 1996 A I H C 2766, (1996) 1 RECCRIR 806, (1996) 2 ALLCRILR 455, (1996) 2 DMC 194, (1996) 2 HINDULR 491, (1996) MATLR 208, (1996) 1 CRICJ 648
Author: P.K. Jain
Bench: P.K. Jain
JUDGMENT P.K. Jain, J.
1. Bachan Singh and his wife Smt. Surjit Kaur have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the complaint (Annexure P.1) and the resultant proceedings including the summoning order (Annexure P2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Ludhiana.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent-Smt. Harpreet Kaur has filed a complaint for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and four others. According to the averments in the complaint (Annexure P.1), the respondent was married with Balbir Singh on 27.11.91 at village Jaipura, Police Station Payal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, according to Sikh rites and thereafter the complainant and her husband lived and cohabited as husband and wife but there is no issue out of this wedlock. The complainant is the only daughter of her parents who have got valuable property within the limits of Doraha city. Her father is employed as a Foreman in Ralson Tyre Co. at Ludhiana. On the occasion of the marriage costly articles were given in dowry and were entrusted to her husband, parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law. After the marriage, Her husband started coercing and maltreating her on account of inadequacy of dowry and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given in cash to him for the purchase of a scooter besides other articles but he was not satisfied and started coercing and maltreating her for the reason as to why a Maruti car was not given to her. Her husband, her parents-in- law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law i.e., all the six persons named as accused in the complaint pressurised the complainant that even the sale of one Kanal landed property can fetch more money than the value of a Maruit car and so why her parents were hesitating to provide the same. This demand was not fulfilled and the accused persons started beating and harassing her. Her parents continuously requested the accused persons including the petitioners not to maltreat, harass and beat the complainant but in vain. A Panchayat took place on 5.3.93 wherein her husband agreed to keep her at Chandigarh within 15 to 20 days. On the request of her husband (accused No. 1) a house was arranged by the parents of the complainant and they also provided household articles like colour TV, refrigerator washing machine etc. including some jewellery but her husband was still not satisfied and he pressurised the complainant as she was the only child of her parents, why not the landed property was transferred in his name by her parents. It is further alleged in the complaint that the lust of all the accused increased day by day with the intention only to grab the property and costly articles from the complainant and her parents. On 25.8.93 the complainant was given severe beatings by all the six accused and they asked the complainant to pressurise her parents to purchase a Maruti car and to transfer the landed property in the name of accused No. 1 failing which there was no place for her in their house. Her clothers were torn out, whereas some of the accused shouted that her life may be finished by sprinkling kerosene. It is further alleged that her husband Balbir Singh sprinkled kerosene on her and other accused were about to lit up the fire when she ran away from the house and went to the Gurdwara in Section 21-C, Chandigarh. She contacted her father on telephone and informed him that her life was in danger. She remained in the Gurdwara when her parents reached there. Entire incident was narrated to them. She along with her parents went to the house in Sector 21-C but nobody was found present there as they had already gone away by locking the house. Even inspite of this fact, efforts were made to compromise but in vain. The police did not take any action in spite of several complaints. A Panchayat was called where a compromise was effected on 26.3.94 but her husband did not keep his words. It is then alleged that the life of the complainant was made hell by the accused persons and she was being harassed by all the accused so as to force her to commit suicide.
3. After recording preliminary evidence in support of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, by order dated 22.9.94 summoned the husband of the complainant to face trial for the offences under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. whereas the remaining accused Nos. 2 to 6 (including the petitioners) were summoned to face trial under Section 498-A, I.P.C.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the parents of the husband of the complainant have filed the present petition for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. Notice was issued to the respondent. According to the report of the Process Server, she had refused to accept the service.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
6. Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has assailed the maintainability of the complaint (Annexure P. 1) and the summoning order (Annexure P.2) on two grounds i.e. (i) that the allegations made in the complaint are quite vague and indefinite, and (ii) that the Court at Ludhiana has got no jurisdiction inasmuch as the allegations of cruelty are alleged to have been committed at Chandigarh.
7. It may be stated that the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised very sparingly to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice- Such powers shall not be exercised when there is remedy already available.
8. It is well-settled that when the accused enters appearance in response to the summons, the Magistrate has to take proceedings under Chapter XX of the Code. But the need to try the accused arises when there is allegation in the complaint that the accused has committed the crime. If there is no allegation in the complaint involving the accused in the commission of the crime, it is implied that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed against the accused. In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr., 1992 Cri. L.J. 3779=I (1992) CCR 316 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India specified the remedy available to a person who has been summoned as an accused in a complaint case to face trial, in the following words:
"It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it-does not disclose any offence against the accused."
9. Admittedly, after the issuance of the summoning order (Annexure P.2), the petitioners never moved the concerned Judicial Magistrate for the necessary relief as claimed in the present petition. Since an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, this Court is reluctant to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.
10. As a result of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise both the pleas comprised in the present petition By way of an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who shall decide the same expeditiously.