Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 Date of Decision: 04.02.2010 1. Jit Singh son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh; 2. Amaro Bai wife of Sh. Jit Singh; 3. Radha Rani d/o Sh. Jit Singh; 4. Malkiat Singh s/o Sh. Jit Singh; 5. Kulwant Singh s/o Sh. Jit Singh; all residents of village Patrianwala, P.S. Khuikhera, District Ferozepur. 6. Jaswinder Kaur @ Surinder Kaur wife of Ranjha singh r/o village Khakhewala, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab, through Department of Home, Mini Secretariat, Punjab, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 2. Sumandeep Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh, r/o village Patrianwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur (Punjab). ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gourave Bhayyia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2/complainant. Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 41, dated 08.05.07, under Sections 148, 323, 324, 498-A, and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station City Khuikhera, District Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. Sumandeep Kaur, complainant/respondent No. 2, made a statement, before the Police, alleging therein, that her marriage, with Kulwant Singh, petitioner No. 5, was solemnized, in the year 2002. It was stated that, soon after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by the petitioners. It was further stated that, even a compromise, was arrived at, between the parties, with the intervention of Jaspinder Singh, but, in vain, as the complainant, was continuously tortured, by the petitioners, for bringing Rs. 50,000/-, in the shape of dowry, from her parents. It was further stated that, one day, when the mother and Paramjit Kaur, sister-in-law of the complainant, came to meet her, the petitioners, abused her (complainant), in their presence, and also thrashed her mercilessly and threatened to set her ablaze, by pouring kerosene upon her. It was further stated that, even the father-in-law of the complainant, hit her with a gandasi, and the blow landed on the upper part of her right arm. It was further stated that, even her husband caught hold her of her right arm, and, Malkiat Singh, her brother-in-law, caught hold her of her left arm, Jaswinder Kaur, her sister-in-law kicked her stomach, whereas, her mother-in-law caught Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 3 hold her of her hair. It was further stated that sufficient dowry, was given, at the time of marriage, to the petitioners. It was further stated that, even at one point of time, the complainant, was given severe beatings, by the petitioners, as a result whereof, she was hospitalized, in Civil Hospital, Abohar, by her parents. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the aforesaid first information report, was registered, by the Police, against the petitioners. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Sumandeep Kaur, made a statement, before the Police, which was found to be doubtful, and, was entered, in the Daily Diary Register. He further submitted that, ultimately, no first information report, on the basis thereof, was registered, as the investigating agency found, that the allegations were false. He further submitted that the Police, all of a sudden, after a long time, registered the case, on the basis of the same statement of Sumandeep Kaur. He further submitted that the mother of the complainant, was fighting a number of cases, against her husband, and had deep influence and interference, in the life of the complainant, even after her marriage with Kulwant Singh. He further submitted that, even the complainant, started levelling false allegations of character assassination, against Kulwant Singh, as a result whereof, there used to remain quarrels in the house. He further submitted that, ultimately, on the basis of false statement, made by Sumandeep Kaur, the aforesaid first information report, against the Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 4 present petitioners, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister- in-law, and, brothers-in-law was registered. He further submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, did not record any reason, as to why, the first information report, was registered, as earlier, the statement of the complainant, was found to be not worth reliance. He further submitted that the proceedings, are attended with malafides and the same are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that Sumandeep Kaur, made a statement, wherein, she made specific allegations, against all the petitioners, that on 11.06.06, at about 6/7, in the evening, her father-in-law, husband Kulwant Singh, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law Malkiat Singh, sister-in-law Jaswinder Kaur, and, sister-in-law Radha Rani, gave her beatings and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, in the shape of dowry. They further submitted that the complainant, also stated that, she was tried to be burnt, after pouring kerosene upon her. They further submitted that, as many as, four injuries, were received by Sumandeep Kaur, complainant, in the said incident, out of which, one injury, was with sharp edged weapon, and the three injuries, were with blunt weapon. They further submitted that cognizable offences, were made out, from the statement of Sumandeep Kaur, complainant. They further submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, rightly ordered the registration of the case. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 5 opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the complaint, or the charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 6 power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 7 of a 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 a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 8 and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. 7. The specific allegations, referred to above, were made, by Sumandeep Kaur, against the petitioners. From the allegations, it was evident, that the petitioners, gave beatings, to Sumandeep Kaur, and caused as many as three injuries with blunt weapon and one injury with sharp edged weapon, on her person. No doubt, in the first instance, only a report, in the Daily Diary Register, was recorded, on the basis of the statement of Sumandeep Kaur. It is not known, on the basis of which evidence, the investigating agency, in the first instance, came to the conclusion, that the allegations, contained in the petition were false. When the complainant, had in clear-cut terms, stated that injuries, were caused, on her person, by the petitioners, and they also threatened to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene upon her, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was right in ordering the registration of the case. At this stage, the Court, is only required to go through the allegations, contained in the first information report. If, there is any probable defence of the accused- petitioners, they can take up the same, during the trial of the case. The continuation of the first information report, and the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, therefore, do not, in any way, amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The same are, thus, not liable to be set aside. Criminal Misc. No. M-3338 of 2008 9 8. For the reasons, recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 3338 of 2008, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 9. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 04.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE