Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Two important questions of law are likely to be decided and discussed by me in the present judgment:

(i) What are the suitable premises on which the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C., should be invoked in the matrimonial disputes ? and
(ii) Which Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offences allegedly committed under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code ?

2. Mandeep Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of Mohalla Ram Nagar, Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), is the petitioner in the present petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for the quashment of FIR No. 43 dated 6.5.1996, Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar, under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the petition has been filed against the State of Punjab and Smt. Mandeep Kaur daughter of Harbans Singh, resident of Jaspal Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, who is the wife of Sukhdev Singh, brother of Mandeep Singh-petitioner.

3. It has been averred in the petition by Mandeep Singh that marriage between his brother Sukhdev Singh and Smt. Mandeep Kaur, respondent No. 2, was solemnised at Amritsar on 6.2.1994. This marriage was consummated between the husband and the wife and out of this wedlock a female child was born to respondent No. 2 on 29.4.1995. In the month of December, 1995, respondent No. 2 left for Amritsar and thereafter she did not join the company of her husband at Mandi. It is alleged that at the instance of respondent No. 2 FIR No. 43 under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B, IPC, was registered in Police Station 'B' Division, Amritsar. The petitioner was also granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on 1st June, 1996. Quashment of the FIR has been sought by the petitioner - Mandeep Singh on the averments that it does not spell out any criminality. On the other hand, the allegations made in the FIR, lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 are wild and vague. Further the petitioner hails from Himachal Pradesh and as such the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, cannot be tried by the Criminal Courts at Amritsar. It is further averred by the petitioner that he has nothing to gain with the alleged demand of dowry and the cruelty of his brother Sukhdev Singh. By placing reliance on several authorities in the petition itself, finally the petitioner Mandeep Singh has prayed for the quashment of the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings.

4. Before I incorporate the stand of respondent No. 2 in the present judgment, first of all I would like to incorporate the material averments of the application dated 15.4.1996 on the basis of which FIR No. 43 was registered in the Police Station. Smt. Mandeep Kaur, respondent No. 2, addressed one application to I.G. (Border Range), Amritsar, and in the said application she has prayed for the registration of the case against Sukhdev Singh, Surjit Singh, Smt. Narinder Kaur, Mandeep Singh (present petitioner), Smt. Bela wife of Inderjit Singh. It may be mentioned here that in para No. 9 of the petition it has been averred by the petitioner himself that his sister had already been discharged from the allegations.

6. To continue with her allegations, the complainant has alleged in her application that she and her family members tried to convince her in-laws and at least on 23.3.1996 her mother-in-law Smt. Narinder Kaur, her father-in-law Surjit Singh, her husband Sukhdev Singh, her brother-in-law Mandeep Singh (Bobby) and her sister-in-law Smt. Bela came with the efforts made by her mediator Jasbir Singh and held a meeting with her parents and brothers. Inspite of the counselling given to them, they did not understand and again demanded Rs. 5 lacs repeatedly. So much so, her mother-in-law, father in low brother-in-law and husband refused to take her with them and they declared that they were ready to rehabilitate the complainant only in case the money is given, otherwise she was at liberty for seeking a divorce, so that a second marriage may be arranged for Sukhdev Singh. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant told her in-laws that in case they are not interested for her rehabilitation, they should return all her belongings and gold jewellery, which was in their possession. The accused flatly refused to accept this demand of the complainant; rather the complainant was threatened not to visit Mandi, lest she should be liquidated. Further it is alleged by the complainant that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister- in-law had turned her married life into a curse and she had been kicked out of the matrimonial home by giving her cruel behaviour and she was mentally tortured by making ingenuine demands of money and dowry from the side of the parents of her husband. These persons have also kept all her belongings and gold jewellery and the complainant conceived an apprehension that all her dowry articles would be disposed of by the accused.