Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankush vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.11.2013
Ankush
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
Ms.Raina Sabharwal Thakur, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.312 dated 2.6.2012 under Section 498-A/ 406/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Gurgaon City District Gurgaon and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had got married to Dinesh Saini on 11.1.2010. Petitioner was the brother of Dinesh Saini. In fact, complainant was Devi Anita 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 2 resident of Canada and had come to India for marriage purposes. Complainant returned to Canada on 22.1.2010. Complainant again visited India on 1.5.2010 and returned to Canada on 21.7.2010. Brother of the petitioner reached Canada on 7.9.2010 and returned on 31.3.2011. Complainant came to India in April 2012 and lodged the FIR in question and thereafter, returned to Canada and is presently residing in Canada. Petitioner had been falsely involved in this case due to his relationship with Dinesh Saini. There was no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other, had harassed the complainant.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant got married to Dinesh Saini on 11.1.2010. Before marriage, on 8.1.2010 Dinesh called the complainant on her mobile phone and demanded ` 5,00,000/- in cash and luxury car at the time of marriage. However, later Dinesh said that he was only playing a prank. After marriage, complainant was subjected to constant and regular harassment by her husband and his family members. Complainant was physically as well as mentally tortured by her husband, his parents and brother. Mother-in-law of the complainant used to taunt the complainant that her father had not fulfilled the demand of dowry. On 22.1.2010, complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home and all her jewellery articles as well as shagun/ cash to the tune of ` 1,00,000/- were taken by her husband and her in-laws. Complainant left with no Devi Anita option had to return to Canada. In April, 2010, it was assured by the 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 3 brother of the petitioner and his family members that complainant would not be harassed and she returned to India on 1.5.2010 but she was asked to give ` 2,00,000/- to enable Dinesh to start a new business. On one occasion, mother of Dinesh slapped the complainant as she had failed to arrange for the amount demanded by them. On 24.7.2010, complainant was again thrown out of the matrimonial home. Complainant returned to Canada on 25.7.2010 . In September 2010, Dinesh also reached Canada. In Canada, Dinesh demanded money from the complainant. On 1.11.2011, Dinesh hit the complainant and as a result she suffered an ear injury and had to undergo an operation. On 29.3.2011, Dinesh got transferred 210 dollors in the account of his father and on the same day, he left for India. In January 2012, Dinesh told the complainant that he wanted to re-start his matrimonial life. Complainant came to India in January 2012. However, complainant was not agreeable to give ` 20,00,000/- to Dinesh's father. Dinesh started threatening the complainant that he would divorce her.
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 Devi Anita secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 4 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 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 Devi Anita are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 5 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 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) Devi Anita RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 6 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 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 Devi Anita 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 7 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 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 Devi Anita 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 36384 of 2012 (O&M) 8 cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
In the present case, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner, who is the brother of husband of the complainant. It appears that he has been involved in this case due to his relationship with Dinesh. In the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.312 dated 2.6.2012 under Section 498-A/ 406/ 34 IPC registered at Police Station Gurgaon City District Gurgaon and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 18, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.11.25 16:54 I am approving this document Chandigarh