CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 Date of Decision : 06.12.2011 Parminder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Veerpal Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present :Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Toor, Advocate, for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Complaint No.47 dated 04.06.2007 (Annexure P-6) under Sections 406, 498-A and 420 IPC and for quashing of the summoning order dated 11.11.2007 (Annexure P-7), vide which the petitioner has been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, along with other co-accused and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that prior to the filing of the present complaint, on earlier two occasions also the respondent-complainant had approached the police authorities and on one of the occasions, in the police station, an agreement (Annexure P-2) was entered into between the parties, according to which, the complainant has stated therein that she was going to her matrimonial house at Barnala with her free will along with all the Istridhan given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. His further contention is that in the inquiry held, on the complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant, police have found the complaint to be false and reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the police reports (Annexure P-4 and P-5). CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 -2- He submits that the police has come to the conclusion that the marriage was simple and no dowry was given to the complainant by her parents at the time of marriage and the petitioner and her mother-in-law had never tortured the complainant. His further contention is that the allegations are against the mother-in-law, namely, Mohinder Kaur and not against the petitioner Parminder Kaur, who is elder sister of the husband of the petitioner and is residing separately since her marriage in the year 1998 in village Heeran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, a far of place. In support of the contention that she is residing separately in village Heeran, reliance has been placed on the voter list of the year 2007 (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been so mentioned. His further contention is that the complaint has been made against the petitioner with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner and has been named in the complaint only to put pressure on her husband and mother-in-law. He accordingly, prays for quashing of Complaint No.47 dated 04.06.2007 (Annexure P-6) under Sections 406, 498-A and 420 IPC and the summoning order dated 11.11.2007 (Annexure P-7). Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Anita and others Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 313, Harjinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab 2004(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 332. Counsel states that it is always not necessary that the case may be relegated for trial if the High Court can come to the conclusion that no offence is made out and powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised by this Court. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 707 and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 A.I.R. CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 -3- (SC) 128. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that there are clearly and specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint. It has been specifically stated that she being a widow was residing in her parental house and therefore, had all the occasion to commit the offence which she did as is apparent from the complaint. In any case, he contends that the documents, which have been placed on record and reliance placed is question of evidence to be gone into by the trial Court at the stage when the trial is held. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the complaint, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6 clearly spells out specific allegations with regard to entrustment of Istridhan to the petitioner. The allegations are also specific with regard to demand of dowry as also the torture and beating given by her which resulted in mental and physical harassment to the complainant. It is also stated therein that she had opposed the compromise between the parties and that she was residing in her parental house and therefore, was clearly involved in the commission of the offence. The offence having been clearly made out against the petitioner from the bare reading of the complaint for which the petitioner has been summoned, the reports of the police (Annexure P-4 and P-5) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made the basis for disbelieving the allegations against the petitioner in the present complaint. These are matters of evidence to be appreciated by the Court as and when the trial proceeds against the petitioner and the defence at this stage cannot be looked into especially when the matter is at the initial stage and CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 -4- documents disputed. Agreement (Annexure P-2) reliance whereof has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner does not indicate that the same has been entered into in the police station as alleged, as none of the police officials are privy of the agreement nor is their any date mentioned on the agreement therefore, this also cannot be made the basis for coming to the conclusion that there was indeed some agreement between the parties. Reliance has been placed on the voter list of the year 2007 (Annexure P-1) which indicates that the petitioner was a voter in Heeran village that does not show that she was actual resident of the said village and again this would also be a question of evidence which has to be considered by the trial Court. In the light of the specific allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint and the documents which have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are to be appreciated at the time when the evidence is led by the parties, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order is not made out. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner were based on specific facts as applicable in those cases and cannot be made applicable to the present case and therefore, are distinguishable. Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Sagar Suri (supra) and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to contend that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the petitioner to face the trial cannot be disputed with but the discretion has to be exercised by the Court in rare cases and that to on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It cannot be taken as a matter of rule in every case the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction even when there are disputed CRM No.M-3719 OF 2009 -5- question of fact involved and no finding can be returned without appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. 06.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE