Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Gurpal Chand Kataria @ Gurpal vs Pawan Kumari on 10 March, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:10.3.2014
Dr. Gurpal Chand Kataria @ Gurpal
---Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumari
---Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
***
Present:- Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate
for the respondent
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed seeking quashing of Complaint No. 23 dated 7.10.2010 titled "Pawan Kumari vs. Kuldeep and others" for offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC")(Annexure P-6) pending Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.13 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M) -2- before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, summoning order dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure P-7) and proceedings emanating therefrom.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the elder married brother-in-law (Jeth) of the respondent. He did his MBBS in the year 1992 and got married with one Baljit Kaur on 27.3.1994. In the year 1999, he was selected as government doctor in Punjab Civil Medical Services. He remained posted as Medical Officer, Ladhra, Jalandhar from 31.1.2001 to 7.6.2006. From 30.6.2006 to 2.6.2010, he was posted as Medical Officer, Dasuya. From 3.6.2010 till the date of filing of the petition, he was posted as Junior Resident at Amritsar Medical College.
Pawan Kumari, respondent was married with Kuldeep on 2.12.2007. It is argued that the respondent filed a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner and others arraigning her husband Kuldeep, his parents and siblings of Kuldeep as accused and the learned trial court, in view of evidence during preliminary enquiry, did not find any ground to proceed against Baljit Kaur wife of the present petitioner and siblings of Kuldeep namely, Baby and Kuki but the petitioner, Kuldeep (husband), Piara Lal and Kanta, parents-in-law of the complainant were summoned to face proceedings. According to counsel, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is staying away from his parental home since the year 1999, has nothing to do with the marital affairs of Pawan Kumari and Kuldeep, has been falsely indicted in the crime. It is further submitted that as per allegations in para 6, the petitioner had been regularly giving medicines to the complainant and in June 2008, the complainant was sick, he gave her an injection and as a result, she became unconscious and gained consciousness Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.13 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M) -3- after about 15 minutes and then she was taken to hospital where her mother and brother were called at night time and she was discharged from the hospital on the next day. It is argued that there is no allegation against the accused that he administered wrong injection resulting in some complication much less his act was mala fide. Another allegation against the petitioner is that on 16th or 17th May, 2010, Baby, accused No. 6, Kuki, accused No. 7, Gurpal, accused No. 4 and Baljit Kaur accused No. 5 with Piara Lal, accused No. 2 and Kanta, accused No. 3 came to the house of the complainant and they asked the complainant to leave the house. They openly proclaimed that Kuldeep accused No. 1 will not come to Madar. The complainant refused to leave her house and was given beatings. Counsel would submit that allegations levelled against Baby, Kuki and Baljit Kaur have been found to be false and the complaint qua them has been dismissed after recording preliminary evidence. It is further submitted that the complainant has levelled vague allegations and did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner in regard to giving beatings. Her version in this regard does not find corroboration from any source whatsoever.
Counsel would further submit that in view of recitals in para 03 of the complaint with regard to entrustment of articles of dowry, the complainant has attributed entrustment of different articles to each of the persons arrayed as accused with an intent to implicate them for offence under Section 406 IPC. It is argued that neither any utensils were entrusted to the petitioner nor the complainant has alleged that those utensils were carried by the petitioner along with him or are in his custody. It is argued with vehemence that the complainant (respondent herein) implicated all the family members of Kuldeep with a mala fide intention to wreak vengeance Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.13 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M) -4- due to marital discord between the complainant and her husband. It is further argued that criminal proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law, thus, liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2010(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 45 and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812.
Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner are liable to be tested during trial and the petitioner is not entitled to seek indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. There is no dispute in regard to petitioner being a doctor, married in the year 1994 and his posting at different places since his selection in Punjab Civil Medical Services. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the resident of the house in which the complainant and Kuldeep remained staying as husband and wife. Pawan Kumari filed the complaint levelling allegations against all the family members of the husband including the ones staying away from the matrimonial home. The allegations levelled against the petitioner when examined in the light of submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I find merit in the plea of the petitioner that he has been indicted in the crime being elder brother of Kuldeep. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta and another's case (supra) has cautioned the courts that large number of complaints of dowry harassment are not bonafide. Majority of the complaints are filed either on the advice Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.13 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 16677 of 2013(O&M) -5- of members of Bar or with their concurrence with exaggerated versions. Large number of these complaints not only flooded the courts but also have led to social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. In Geeta Mehrotra and another's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial dispute, a fact borne out of experience cannot be overlooked that there is a tendency to involve the family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in the matrimonial dispute.
The facts and circumstances of the present case, when examined in the light of observations made in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that it would be unfair to compel the petitioner to face rigmarole of criminal proceedings which cause untold misery to the accused and in the present case, further it would result in wastage of services of the petitioner to be rendered to the public.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Complaint No. 23 dated 7.10.2010 titled "Pawan Kumari vs. Kuldeep and others" for offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC(Annexure P-6) pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, summoning order dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure P-7) and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.
Nothing stated in this order shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of role attributed to other accused. .
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 10.03.2014 paramjit Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.13 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh