Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kumar Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 26 November, 1993
Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC388
JUDGMENT G.S. Chahal, J.
1. Balwinder Kumar Sharma and others in this petition under Section 482 Cr P C. seek quashing of F.I.R, No, 517 of 1991 registered at P.S. Sonepat for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The impugned FIR was got registered by Rajni Sharma by moving an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat.
2. The averments made in the application may be briefly stated.
3. Rajiv Sharma was married to Balwinder Sharma on 9.12.1990 and the relations including Harbans Lal Sharma, the father, Krishna Devi the mother, attended that marriage. A dowry was given as detailed in para 1 of the application. The whole of the package was given to Harbans Lal and Rajinder Kumar (a brother-in-law of the Husband), The Doli was taken to Faridabad but the petitioners were not satisfied with the articles of dowry and they started taunting her. it was pointed out that the clothes given were of cheap quality and beds given has already been used while T.V., V.C.R. and Cooler had not been given. She was asked to bring these articles and she could stay in the house only thereafter. They also took back the articles of 'Wari' which had been given to her at the time of marriage. That when she came to visit her parents at Soaepat in the company of her husband she disclosed all the facts to her parents and brother who explained to Balwinder Kumar that they had already spent beyond their capacity. Even Manohar Lal Syal tried to prevail upon Balwinder Kumar to see reasons but he being payment a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was borrowed from Manohar Lal Syal and given to Balwinder Kumar and then Rajni Sharma accompanied by her husband returned to Faridabad. On return of Faridabad however, the members of her in-law's family felt annoyed and told her tauntingly that atleast the cash necessary for purchase of T.V. V.C.R. and Coller should have been brought. She was then deprived of the articles of Jewellery and told that the same shall be returned only when the other demands are met. When her brother and his friends came with clothes for Lohiri, taunting remarks were made about those articles. Balwinder Kumar and her sister's husband are transporters and their truck met with an accident and she was given a beating on the pretext that she was unlucky and her arrival had caused destruction. Pressure was put on her that she should bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents to meet the expenses of repairs of the truck. That she was being subjected to beatings almost daily and her cries used at attract the neighbours and fearing that the same shall bring bad name to them, they shifted their residence to a new residence in Sector 17. That 3-4 days after the Basakbi, she went to kitchen to prepare tea at the asking of her sister-in-law where her own Dupatta caught fire and when she threw it away and raised cries, her sister-in-law caught hold of her and thrusted cloth in her mouth and locked her inside a room where she was kept hungry. In the following morning she was taken out and her signatures were obtained on 3-4-papers. On receiving her letter, which she had been able to despatch secretly, her parents brought a Panchayat who tried to prevail upon her husband against such conduct but the Panchayat was also insulted and it was stated that Rajni Sharma will be able to live in the house only after the demands for T.V., V.C.R. and Cooler are met. After their departure she was then given beating till the next day and on the night of 6th May 1992 she was turned out of the house. She contacted Ved Parkash and narrated all out of the house. She contacted Ved Parkash and narrated all the fact? to him. Thereafter she had written letters to her husband but the same had no effect. That articles of dowry and Stridhana have not been returned.
4. Mr. R.S. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that all the acts of mal-treatment as are stated to have taken place at Faridabad and as such the police at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the Courts at Sonepat have no jurisdiction to try the offence. Moreover there were also no specific allegations of Section 406 IPC against Smt. Krishna and Smt. Pinky.
5. There is force in the contention of learned Counsel. I have given a detailed account of the allegations made in the application moved by Smt. Rajni Sharma and therein allegations of cruelty are made with respect to the period when she stayed in her in-laws house which admittedly was at Faridabad. The police at Sonepat had thus on jurisdiction to investigate this matter.
6. In the complaint, it hat been stated that at the time of marriage, the whole of the package of dowry articles had been entrusted to Harbans Lal and Rajinder Kumar. The only other person who could possibly have acquired domain over those articles was Balwinder Kamar. With respect to Krishna and Pinky there were no allegations whatsoever with regard to any articles of dowry. They thus cannot be held liable for offence under Section 406 IPC.
7. I hereby allow the petition partly and quash the FIR against all the petitioners for offence under Section 498A. I also quash the FIR and the proceedings for offence under Section 406 IPC against Smt. Krishna and Smt. Pinky. It shall be open to Smt. Rajni Sharma to seek her remedies for prosecution of the petitioners under Section 498A in the proper form.
8. At the oral request of the learned Counsel, I direct that Harbans Lal Sharma shall be exempted from personal appearance by the Trial Court on moving of a proper application. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 13th December, 1993.