Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.7.2011 Mohinder Singh and another .. Petitioners vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 91 dated 24.11.2010 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sadar S. B. S. Nagar (Nawan Shahr). The case in hand is one of those cases where apparently provisions of Indian Penal Code in matrimonial dispute have been misused by the complainant. The marriage of the complainant with the son of the petitioners was solemnised on 16.2.2006. Her family was already living in USA at that time. She came in India for the marriage and left on 29.3.2006. The husband also followed. Since then the couple never came back to India. They are living in USA. The allegations levelled in the FIR show that the relations between the couple were not cordial. The allegations regarding demand of dowry, subsequent to the alleged harassment, if any, had taken place while the couple was residing in USA. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that on 25.8.2010, the husband had filed divorce petition against the complainant in USA. The complainant-wife came to India on 14.9.2010 and got the present FIR registered against the husband and his family members on 24.11.2010. It is stated that the complaint with the police was lodged on Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (2) 27.9.2010. Counsel for the complainant merely stated that the complainant went back after 20 days of the lodging of the complaint with the police. He is not aware of the exact date. Present complaint is being pursued by her attorney. In the complaint to the police, the entire allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry are pertaining to the period when the couple was residing in USA. To bring the cause of action in India, it is stated that at the time of marriage, four sets of gold weighing 35 tolas were given to her, out of which two sets have been kept by the petitioners. When the complainant came to India in September 2010, she had brought two gold sets with her which were also taken by the petitioners. In addition to that, the complainant also alleged that $ 8000 brought by her were also taken by the petitioners on the pretext that thefts in the area are on increase and they will keep the gold sets and the cash in safe custody. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant lived with the petitioners only for three days. She came to India on 14.9.2010. Meaning thereby that stay of three days with the petitioners resulted in lodging of the complaint on 27.9.2010 with the police, on account of harassment which had allegedly been caused by the husband in USA and three days in India by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant was not very sure as to whether the complainant while coming to India had disclosed at the Customs Barrier regarding her bringing the jewellary and $ 8000 in cash. Learned State counsel submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are not required for any custodial interrogation. While hearing matrimonial dispute in Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another 2010 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal) 45, Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the issue of misuse of Section 498-A IPC observe that a serious relook of the entire provisions is warranted by the legislation. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:- 28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (3) flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, `cruelty' means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (4) matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (5) living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Criminal Misc. No. M-8116 of 2011 (6) Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.” Considering the aforesaid facts and also the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners have already joined investigation, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Accordingly, the order dated 3.5.2011 vide which the petitioners were granted interim bail, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 21.7.2011 (Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge