Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bir Singh @ Amir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 April, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:09.04.2013
Bir Singh @ Amir Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No.1-State.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of complainant-Sarabjit Kaur daughter of Balkar Singh, respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized on 06.03.2005 with Sukhchain Singh son of Baldev Singh, according to Sikh Rites and Ceremonies. Sufficient dowry articles, including the gold ornaments, were stated to have been given by her parents to the accused at the time of solemnization of the marriage. Thereafter, they resided together and cohabited as a husband & wife and a female child, namely, Muskanpreet Kaur was born out of their wedlock. It was claimed that after some time of the marriage, her in-laws started CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 2 troubling her. The accused asked her to bring more dowry articles and car. When she refused to do so, they used to beat her.
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail, in all, according to the complainant that her husband- Sukhchain Singh, Lakhbir Kaur(mother-in-law) and other relatives, including the petitioner, have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-Bir Singh @ Amir Singh, her husband(Sukhchain Singh),mother-in-law(Lakhbir Kaur), sister-in-law(Rajwinder Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur), Sandeep Singh, son of the petitioner and others, by virtue of FIR No.114 dated 31.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Kathu Nangal, Amritsar.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that he is uncle of Sukhchain Singh(husband) and has been falsely implicated being his relative. Neither any specific role, nor any overt-act is attributed to him in this regard. Even, the complainant did not level any specific allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry against him in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Annexure P-2. All the relatives of the husband of the complainant were stated to have CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 3 been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. Sequelly, the further case of the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, neither he treated the complainant with cruelty, nor demanded any dowry articles from her. He is residing separately from the complainant and her husband and very vague and general allegations are assigned by the complainant and no indicated offences are made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, now the petitioner has sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom relatable to him only, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
5. Although, the complainant did not dare to refute the prayer of the petitioner, contained in the petition despite service, however, State of Punjab has filed its reply, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that, the respondent-State has reiterated all the allegations contained in the FIR and casually prayed for dismissal of the main petition.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
7. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner is old uncle of Sukhchain Singh, husband of the complainant. The allegations assigned to him with regard to the demand of dowry, are general in nature CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 4 and are as vague as anything. No specific role or overt-act, constituting the indicated offences, are attributed to him. The main accused Sukhchain Singh, husband and Lakhbir Kaur, mother-in-law of the complainant, to whom, the direct allegations of taunting and treating her with cruelty are assigned, are facing trial in the trial Court. How, when and in what manner, the petitioner, who is old uncle of the husband, has treated the complainant with cruelty in this relevant connection, remains an unfolded mystery.
8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, in order to attract the penal provisions against the other relative of the husband, there must be specific allegations or overt-act and prima facie material to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted and he has misappropriated the same. For the fault of the husband, the uncle cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. Where such accusation is made, the overt-acts attributed to the relatives other than the husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of dowry, which are miserably lacking in the present case. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
9. An identical question recently came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another 2010(7) SCC 667. After interpreting the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it was ruled as under (paras 30 to 36) :-
"30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 5 complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 6 entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.
36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 7
Consequently, this appeal is allowed."
Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis mutandis" is duly applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
10. Likewise, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. Admittedly, the complainant has also involved Rajwinder Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur, Harwinder Kaur, her sister-in-laws and Sandeep Singh, son of the petitioner, in this case. The present FIR qua Rajwinder Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur and Harwinder Kaur (sister-in-laws) has already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mahesh Grover, J.), by means of judgment dated January 10, 2012 in CRM No.M-4880 of 2010( Annexure P-4), whereas the petition filed by Sandeep Singh, son of the petitioner, was accepted and FIR was quashed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.) vide order dated 19.07.2012 in CRM No.M-5176 of 2012 ( Annexure P-5).
11. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy, involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court, Annexures P-4 and P-5 in this relevant connection.
12. Meaning thereby, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as described here-in-above, is clubbed together and perused, then, to my mind, no offences in question are made out and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously got registered the FIR (Annexure P-1) against him(petitioner), in order to wreak vengeance. In CRM No.M-24658 of 2012(O&M) 8 that eventuality, if the complainant is permitted to prosecute the petitioner, who is old uncle of her husband and is residing separately, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to him. In this manner, the complainant appears to have falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner only, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, with regard and relatable to the petitioner only, are hereby quashed. He is accordingly, discharged from the indicated criminal case.
Needless to state that, nothing recorded here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case against the main accused, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the petition filed by the present petitioner only.
April 09, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No