Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Kulwinder Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Manjit Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Lucky, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashing of complaint (P-4) under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of the IPC titled as Manjit Kaur versus Jaswant Singh and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala for 05.02.2009 and summoning Order dated 08.03.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed in the said complaint (P-4), as well as, the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are government servant. Petitioner no.1 is Anganwari worker and petitioner No.2 is the Headmaster in the Govt. High School, Talwara. They are uncle and aunt of Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 2 the husband of the complainant i.e. chacha and chachi. The petitioners have there own family comprising two sons and married daughter and residing separately from last many years and having separate house about ½ kms away from the house of the husband of the complainant. A copy of the Ration Card (Annexure P-1/1) issued on 01.12.2008 shows that the petitioners are residing separately. The marriage between Jaswant Singh, nephew of the petitioners was solemnized with the respondent-complainant in January 1992. From the said wedlock, six children were born but none of them survived and each one of them died soon after birth. Jaswant Singh, most of the time, remained abroad in connection with earning livelihood. Firstly, he had gone to Dubai and thereafter, he went to Israel. On 01.08.2003, Jaswant Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-complainant seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty. Subsequent to the filing of divorce petition dated 01.08.2003, the respondent-complainant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C against her husband Jaswant Singh on 22.07.2005 as P-2. Jaswant Singh after appearing in the said petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C by his wife Manjit Kaur i.e. the respondent-complainant also filed his reply thereto. In fact, Jaswant Singh submitted a complaint dated 15.04.2005 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, on the basis of which, an FIR No.183 dated 07.11.2005 stands registered against the respondent/complainant with Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala under Section 420 IPC. It is, therefore, contended that in order to pressurize and browbeat, the complainant filed the present complaint dated 06.08.2005 against her husband Jaswant Singh, as well as, his other family members as counter blast to the divorce petition and FIR registered against the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, however, vehemently argued that there are specific allegations in the complaint and, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. It is apparent that the said complaint has been filed after a span of 14 years from her marriage with Jaswant Singh. Moreover, it was filed after the husband Jaswant Singh had filed the divorce petition and a complaint dated 15.04.2005, on the basis of which, an FIR dated 07.11.2005 also stand registered against the respondent-complainant. Moreover, the present petitioners are the uncle and aunt of the husband of the complainant. They are living separately. The allegations of interference in the matrimonial life of the complainant does not appear to be correct. Practically, all the relations of her-in-laws family are enroped. The sister, too, was not spared. Accordingly, this Court quashed the FIR qua the sister Kulwant Kaur wife of S. Balbir Singh vide Order dated 23.10.2009 in Crl. Misc. No.M-14833 of 2007. In any case, the complaint after 14 years of the marriage is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the petitioners appear to have been enroped only because they are close relatives of the husband of the complainant. This Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, while relying on the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 695 held as under:- “22. Another judgement rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case (supra) relied by Mr. Saini, this Court while relying upon a judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their Lordships have Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 4 observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. 23. My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68 in which their Lordships while quashing the proceeding against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in as many relations of the husband. 24. Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the “action” and not the “section” may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing with the dowry menace, however, observed in para 17 as under:- “ The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomny (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendettaor unleash harassment. It may, Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 5 therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalised statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available Crl. Misc. No.M-33774 of 2008 6 and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” Even otherwise, the allegations in the present petition does not inspire confidence. The petitioners are only uncle and aunt of the husband of the complainant. They have their own family comprising of two sons and one married daughter. They are admittedly residing separately. The said allegations, in any case, which are not specific, are made after 14 years of the marriage and that also after the filing of the divorce petition and a criminal complaint against the complainant. Lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. In the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Divya alias Babli and others (supra), the present petition qua the petitioners are allowed. Accordingly, complaint (P-4) under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B of the IPC titled as Manjit Kaur versus Jaswant Singh and others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala for 05.02.2009 and summoning Order dated 08.03.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed in the said complaint (P-4), as well as, the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are, hereby, quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 02.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet