IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.2.2010 Pawanjit Kaur and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Y.P.Malik, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Sabina J. Petitioner- Pawanjit Kaur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the FIR No.409 dated 13.9.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Sadar, Yamunanagar along with all consequential criminal proceedings emanating thereto. The case of the complainant as per FIR (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- Stated that the complainant was got married with accused No.1 as per Hindu Rites on 2.1.08 at Shagan Palace, near Santpura Gurdwara, Distrifct Yamunanagar. The family members of the complainant had given dowry beyond their capacity in the marriage of the complainant, from which the accused were not happy and complainant’s entire dowry was entrusted to accused No.1 to 4 on the assurance that as and when complainant will demand her dowry, the accused shall return the same. That even from the time of marriage, the above said accused started giving taunts upon the complainant for bringing less dowry and it had just passed five days that when on 25.1.2008 the complainant was washing her clothes in the washing machine of her in-laws, the accused No.4 mother in law and accused No.5 sister in law snatched the washing machine from complainant and said that if Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 you want to clothes in washing machine then bring it from your own home, your parents have given nothing to us in your marriage. Therefore, do not touch this machine again. Thereafter, the accused started more harassment and humiliation to the complainant and complainant silently tolerated the taunts of accused. When the complainant opposed to do this, then she was given beatings and threatened to kill. That accused No.2 is very cleaver and cunning type of person. The incident is of 4.3.2008 when the complainant was all alone in the house, the accused No.2, who is Dever of the complainant, came to house and accused No.2 tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant with mala fide intention and acted in obscene manner and when the complainant tried to forbid him to do so, the accused No.2 used filthy language and threatened to kill in case she disclosed and gave beatings. When in the evening complainant’s husband came to house, the complainant narrated whole this to her husband and also told to other accused persons about this, upon which all accused started saying that your parents have given nothing articles in marriage and you on the contrary are levelling false allegations upon our son. That accused persons have hatched a conspiracy to kill the complainant and intentionally left opened the Gas stove and when the complainant went into the kitchen she felt smell of gas, due to pity of God the complainant escaped. Yet the complainant tolerated the activities of accused persons silently. On 11.5.2008 the complainant had gone to meet her sister at Rurki where the complainant and her husband had sustained injuries after the accident. Accused No.3 and 4 did not go to the complainant’s house at Yamunanagar. Neither they got treated the complainant nor they took her along with them. That accused are saying the complainant that if you want to live in this house then she has to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents house and then only she will be allowed to live in this because we have to business with the money. That, after this, panchayats of respectables and relatives of both the parties were convened, but accused persons did not profess any thing and remained adamant on demand of Rs.50,000/- and saying that if you did not give us 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 Rs.50,000/- we will not allow the complainant to live in our house, nor we will keep her with us and also we will not return the articles which has been entrusted in the marriage of the complainant. If you took any legal action against us then we will kill the complainant. In all these panchayats, Sukhdev Singh son of Shri Santokh Singh r/o Moga and Sanjay Sharma son were present before whom the accused persons raised the demand of money and threatened to kill the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the action may kindly be taken against the accused person and register a case against the accused person after taking stern legal action against them for threatening to kill, beatings demanding dowry by them. Sd/- Complainant Rajinder Kaur wife of Kamaljit Singh, daughter of Balwant Singh, resident of 139, madanpuri Bhatia Nagar, Yamunanagar.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there were general allegations levelled against the accused in the FIR. There was no specific allegation against the petitioner No.1-Pawanjit Kaur qua demand of dowry or harassment on account of inadequacy of dowry. Petitioner No.1 was married sister-in-law of the complainant and had been married about 10 years back and was residing in Uttar Pradesh with her husband whereas complainant is residing at Yamunanagar with her husband. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case ‘Jasmin and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 228. Learned counsel for the State and respondent No.2 on the other hand have oppose the petition and have stated that there was specific allegation levelled against the petitioner No.1 in the FIR. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 “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 secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible 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, 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 not 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 are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis 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 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code of 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 proceedings should be exercised very sparingly an 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 or the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that only specific allegation levelled against the petitioner No.1 is that on 25.1.2008, while the complainant was washing her clothes in the washing machine, the petitioner No.1 and her mother-in-law had not allowed her to wash her clothes in the washing machine and told her that she should bring one washing machine from her parents. The said allegation even if presumed to be true cannot be construed to be a demand of dowry or harassment to the complainant qua Petitioner No.1 as she is a married woman and is residing with her in-laws at Mohali. She would gain nothing in case the complainant brings a separate washing machine. It is possible that she has been name in the FIR being sister of husband of the complainant. In Kansi Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of Apex Court have observed that a 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-30165 of 2009 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. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are general allegations levelled against the petitioner No.1. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.1 is residing in the house of her-in-laws for the last 10 years, it is a fit case where FIR in question is liable to be quashed qua Pawanjit Kaur-petitioner No.1. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.409 dated 13.9.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Sadar, Yamunanagar along with all consequential criminal proceedings emanating thereto are quashed qua petitioner No.1. [ Sabina ] Judge 19.02.2010 sd 6