Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.04.2010 Chuhar Chand and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-14486 of 2008 Jyoti Bala ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.K. Laddi, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. NoM-14486 of 2008 Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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. This Order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 and Crl. Misc. No.M-14486-M of 2008 as prayer in both the petitions is for Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 2 quashing of same FIR No.31 dated 17.03.2007 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Petitioner no.1 in Crl. Misc. No.27565 of 2008 is father-in-law and petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law of the complainant. The marriage of Manish Kumar son of the petitioners was solemnized on 06.02.2000 as per Sikh Rites with respondent No.2-Paramjit Kaur. The petitioner-Jyoti Bala in Crl. Misc. No.M-14486 of 2008 is unmarried sister of husband of the complainant aged about 21 years. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the allegations against petitioners and their daughter-Jyoti Bala and son Manish Kumar, case was registered on 17.03.2007. Jyoti Bala is the unmarried daughter of the petitioners and is aged about 21 years. She was 13 years old at the time of marriage i.e. On 06.02.2000 as her date of birth is 16.02.1987. While praying for quashing of FIR, it was contended that the alleged occurrence was related to 06.02.2000 and the present FIR was registered on 17.03.2007. Thus, no congnizance can be taken in view of the limitation prescribed in the provisions under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, no alleged dowry articles were exchanged at the time of marriage as it was solemnized in religious place in the presence of common relatives and lastly, during the investigation, nothing has been recovered from the petitioners. Rather, the dowry articles have been produced by the husband of respondent No.2 himself before the police. The police has taken all the dowry articles in possession of Manish Kumar, co-accused vide recovery Memo dated 22.08.2007. It was then contended that no offence under Sections 406/498 IPC was made out. Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Taking up the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was barred by limitation, it was pointed out that the petitioners have not only misrepresented the facts before this Court but are also guilty of suppressing the true facts from this Court. It was stated that the cruelty towards the complainant continued in one form or the other. It is submitted that before the marriage of Answering respondent, petitioner No.1 was already working as an Agent with the Post Office, Zira, District Ferozepur with regard to Bachat Yojana Scheme initiated by the Post Office. Petitioner no.2 was also working as an agent in the above said scheme as also their son Manish Kumar, who was also working an agent in his own capacity. After the marriage of the answering respondent with Manish Kumar, she was also made an agent with agent No.241148. Since, the answering respondent, being a lady, could not go to either collect or deposit the funds collected from the depositors, as such, her husband Manish Kumar used to collect the same from the depositors and used to give the same to one Shashi Bala posted as Sub Post Master in Post Office S.G.R.R. Zira along with the pass books which Shashi Bala was supposed to complete and sign along with the entry of recent balance. As per the Post Office rules, it is only Sub Post Master, who has to receive the money brought by various sub agents and after making the entry in the respective pass books and signing the same deposit the money further with the post master. In the year 2004, the allegations with regard to misappropriation of around Rs.8.50 lac was made against the answering respondent's husband and the department thereafter started the enquiry. Both the petitioners as well as their son Manish Kumar started shifting the blame upon the answering respondent and after due course of enquiry, FIR Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 4 No.187 dated 02.11.2004 under Sections 406/471 IPC was registered against the answering respondent and her husband. Thereafter, the answering respondent was granted bail vide detailed Order dated 21.03.2005. Thus, the very cruelty against the answering respondent continued and she became a victim of harassment of the present petitioners who even committed illegal acts on her name without her knowledge. In fact, the allegations in the FIR have continued as the petitioners duped number of small investors and shifted the entire blame on the complainant. Moreover, on account of this, the petitioners along with their son i.e. the husband of the complainant sold away the house, as well as, the other property at Zira and disappeared. This Court vide Order dated 21.03.2005, while dismissing the bail application of Munish Kumar in FIR No.187 dated 02.11.2004 registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur had observed as under :- “ After considering the matter and keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner with regard to tampering with the record of the post office and also of bogus entries having been made, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. In fact in the circumstance his custodial interrogation would be more elicitation oriented. As regards the fact that the arrest of Paramjit Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.13333-M of 2005) has been stayed on 7.3.2005 it may be noticed was under different circumstances and one of the contentions raised was that she was a lady and had one year old child. Besides, it was on her complaint, that the matter was enquired into. In the circumstances, no ground for anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made ut. Consequently, the petition seeking pre arrest bail is dismissed.” Thus, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of limitation as very offence of cruelty has continued against the answering respondent Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 5 and is continuing till date. The argument that the allegations in FIR No.187 dated 02.11.2004 under Sections 406 and 471 IPC are not a subject matter of the present FIR and this cannot be looked into to state that the cruelty continued, does not help the petitioners in the facts of the present case as the allegations are very much a part and parcel of the FIR No. No.31 dated 17.03.2007 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur and the translated version reads as under :- “ Panchayat left the applicant in her in laws house, but accused persons on the entering kept the anger and vide a well thought of scheme, all accused made a scheme according to which accused Manish Kumar, his father Chuhar Chand and Parkash Rani after receiving amount for agency, used to sign and fabricate and forge the signatures of the applicant and caused loss of Rs.9 lacs due to which one case has been registered against Manish Kumar applicant and also accused in this case. Applicant was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court and from so many years she is continuing to face the criminal case and now accused persons have also turned her out from the house alongwith her daughter.” With respect to the second argument that offence under Sections 406/498 IPC is not made out as per the allegations, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the FIR shows that there are specific allegations of beating and harassment for bringing less dowry against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. There are allegations of physical assault as well. Thus, there is no ground to quash the FIR. It is a well settled proposition of law that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised carefully and with great caution. The same should be exercised only if it is the misuse of the process of law or in order to meet the ends of justice or in case, no offence Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 6 is made out even after reading of the complaint or the allegation in the FIR. Neither of the above ingredients are satisfied. There are specific allegations in the FIR which need to be probed. The discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised in the facts of the present case and the investigation cannot be scuttled at this stage. However, with respect to the Crl. Misc. No.M-14486 of 2008 filed by Jyoti Bala is on different footing. She is unmarried sister who was 13 years of old at the time of her brother's marriage. There is no specific allegation against her. In such like cases, sometimes, the entire family is enroped. In fact, learned counsel for respondent No.2 was fair enough to accept that the allegations qua the sister-in-law were vague in the FIR. Thus, in view of the above discussion, FIR No. 31 dated 17.03.2007 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur qua Jyoti Bala in Crl. Misc. No.M-14486 of 2008 is quashed and the petition Crl. Misc. No.M-27565 of 2008 qua the father- in-law and mother-in-law is dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.04.2010 JUDGE gurpreet