Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.05.2010 1. Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur wife of Sh. Gurbaksh Singh; 2. Gurbaksh Singh son of Sudagar Singh; 3. Harnam Singh son of Sh. Gurbaksh Singh; 4. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha son of Sh. Gurbaksh Singh; all residents of Mohalla Bebe Nanki, Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala. 5. Taranjit Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur @ Rani wife of Sh. Anoop Singh; 6. Anoop Singh son of Sh. Darbara Singh; all residents of H. No. 37, Mohalla Bebe Nanki Marg, Sultanpur Lodhi, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, Distt. Kapurthala. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Punjab. 2. Sarabjit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur wife of Harnam Singh, daughter of Sarup Singh, r/o village Singhpur Dera, Tehsil & Distt. Hoshiarpur. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 193, dated 14.09.07, under Section 498-A IPC, Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P1), and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the marriage of Sarabjit Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur, respondent No. 2, daughter of Sarup Singh, complainant, was solemnized with Harnam Singh, petitioner No. 3, on 17.10.04, as per Sikh religious rites and ceremonies. Sufficient articles of dowry, were given, at the time of marriage, by the complainant. But, soon after the marriage, the daughter of the complainant, was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, in the shape of car and television, as also the cash amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-, from time to time, by the petitioners. On many occasions, she was turned out of her bridal home. Even, on 27.05.07, she was attempted to be killed, by the petitioners, but, she somehow managed to escape. The complainant, tried his level best, to rehabilitate his daughter, in her bridal home, but to no avail. Ultimately, left with no other alternative, the aforesaid FIR, was got registered. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, petitioner No. 1, is the mother-in-law, petitioner No. 2, is the father-in-law, petitioner No. 3, is the husband, petitioner No. 4, is the brother-in- Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 3 law, petitioner No. 5, is the sister-in-law, and, petitioner No. 6, is the husband of petitioner No. 5. He further submitted that, respondent No. 2, left the house of petitioners No. 1 and 2, after taking a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-, from her husband, which he received, as a sale consideration, after selling his house, on 20.10.05. He further submitted that, respondent No. 2, refused to join the company of her husband. He further submitted that, thereafter, a petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, by petitioner No. 3, against respondent No. 2, on 16.07.07, wherein, she was ordered, to be summoned for 16.08.07. He further submitted that, after getting notice of the said petition, Sarup Singh father of respondent No. 2, got registered the instant false FIR, under Section 498-A IPC, against the petitioners. He further submitted that, the petitioners, never subjected respondent No. 2, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that, petitioner No. 4, brother-in-law, petitioner No. 5, sister-in-law, and, petitioner No. 6, husband of Taranjit Kaur, petitioner No. 5, had no connection, whatsoever, with respondent No. 2, nor there could be any occasion, for them, to treat her with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, as they were residing, in separate houses, after marriage. He further submitted that, even a compromise, was arrived at, in the petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein, a statement (Annexure P7) of respondent No. 2, was recorded, on 29.03.08, wherein, she stated that, she had compromised the matter with her husband. He further submitted that the FIR and the Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 4 subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, from the allegations, contained in the FIR, it is evident, that the petitioners, used to quarrel with respondent No. 2, on account of demand of Rs. 40,000/-. They further submitted that, even it is evident, from the allegations, contained in the FIR, that the petitioners, used to give beatings, to respondent No. 2, and, throw her out her bridal home, saying that, she could come back only, if she brought Rs. 20,000/-. They also demanded car and television from respondent No. 2. They further submitted that, even a number of injuries, were caused, on the person of respondent No. 2, by the petitioners. They further submitted that, charge, has already been framed and two prosecution witnesses, have already been examined. They further submitted that, no ground, whatsoever, is, made out, for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be partly accepted and partly dismissed, as would be discussed, hereinafter. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha son of Gurbaksh Singh, petitioner No. 4, is the brother-in-law, Taranjit Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur @ Rani wife of Anoop Singh, petitioner No. 5, is the married sister-in-law, and, Anoop Singh son of Darbara Singh, petitioner No. 6, is the husband of Taranjit Kaur, petitioner No. 5. It is a matter of common experience, that when the Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 5 relations, between the husband and wife become strained, then the wife or her parents, are out and out, to implicate as many members of the family of her in-laws, as they could, with a view, to take revenge. There are only general and vague allegations, against Lakhwinder Singh, Taranjit Kaur, and, Anoop Singh, with regard to subjecting respondent No. 2, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-, car and television. They had no concern, whatsoever, with the demand of the amount as also the articles aforesaid or subjecting respondent No. 2, to cruelty, in connection with the demand thereof. Only the husband, the father-in- law, and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, could be said to be concerned with the demand. They, at the most, could be said to have allegedly subjected the complainant, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of cash and the articles aforesaid, in the shape of dowry. The names of Lakhwinder Singh, Taranjit Kaur, and, Anoop Singh, were apparently mentioned, by the complainant, just with a view, to exaggerate the number of the accused. The petition, qua Lakhwinder Singh, Taranjit Kaur, and, Anoop Singh, is, thus, liable to be accepted. 7. Coming to the case of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, petitioner No. 1, Gurbaksh Singh, petitioner No. 2, and, Harnam Singh, petitioner No. 3, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and, husband of respondent No. 2, respectively, it may be stated here, that they are the main accused, who allegedly subjected respondent No. 2 to cruelty, in connection with the demand of Rs. 40,000/- and Criminal Misc. No. M-29058 of 2009 6 Rs. 20,000/-, as also the articles aforesaid, from time to time, and, allegedly caused injuries, on her person. There is nothing, on the record, that the husband, was residing separately, from his parents. In view of the specific allegations, against Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, Gurbaksh Singh, and, Harnam Singh, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for quashing the proceedings against them. What is the effect of the alleged compromise, if any, shall be seen, by the trial Court, qua these accused, during the trial of the case. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the petition, qua Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, petitioner No. 1, Gurbaksh Singh, petitioner No. 2, and, Harnam Singh, petitioner No. 3, is dismissed. 9. The petition, qua Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, petitioner No. 4, Taranjit Kaur @ Ranjit Kaur @ Rani, petitioner No. 5, and, Anoop Singh, petitioner No. 6, is accepted. The FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua them. 10. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 11. The Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 11.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE