CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.01.2010 Varinder Kumar ........ petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of FIR No. 160 dated 08.08.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P1). Facts of the case, in short, are that petitioner Varinder Kumar retired from service of Punjab Government, Department of Agriculture. He CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 2 is 64 years of age and is a permanent resident of District Gurdaspur, Punjab. On 20.02.2002, complainant-Sanjogta married to Rohit Kapoor according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple could not pull on together and difference cropped up between them. Complainant – Sanjogta filed a complaint against all the family members of her husband as well as against the petitioner and his wife Vimla Devi and Maternal Uncle Satish Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR 160 dated 08.08.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. The only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he was given a Woollen Blanket and Rs.201/- as shagun. The complainant further alleged that at the asking of her-in-laws, the petitioner went to her parents house for collecting money. The main thrust of allegation in the FIR are against husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. However, the police authorities submitted challan under Section 137 of Criminal Procedure of Code against the husband, the petitioner and sister-in-law only and declared mother-in-law and father-in- law innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a distant relative of the husband of the complainant and is living separately at a far away place from the matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, stated that Rohit Kapoor, husband of the complainant has two sisters, namely, Mrs. Ruchi and Mrs. Ritu. He has three more “Massars' ( (mother's brother- in-law), 'Massies' (mother's sisters) and three 'Mamas'. In laws of Ruchi were living at just two houses neibourhood to Rohit Kapoor's parental house CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 3 at Allahabad and she generally used to live at her parental house and was one amongst them in misappropriation and harassment. Mrs. Ritu, his second sister though living in the same house (her parental house) as she was left by her husband was not party to harassment and misappropriation and as such she was not named in the FIR. Two more 'Massies' and 'Massars' are not named. Two more “Mamas, are also not named. The complainant is not blowing anything out of proportion. She only named the person who is actually involved and was party to misappropriation and harassment and none else. From the perusal of the FIR, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was given a woollen blanket and Rs.201/- as Shagun at the time of marriage. Another allegation against him is that he along with his wife Bimla Devi and one Satish Kumar on the asking of accused No. 1 came to the parents house of the complainant and told them if they did not pay the amount to accused No. 1 to 4 then the complainant would not be allowed to life in the matrimonial home. It is stated that the petitioner was rather only a mediator in the matrimonial alliance of the complainant with accused No. 1. After marriage, the complainant went to Allahabad along with her-in-laws and started living there in her matrimonial house. The petitioner never went to Allahabad to meet the complainant and her husband/in-laws. Nothing has been pointed out to show as to how the petitioner was going to be benefit from any demand of dowry by other members of the family. It is well settled proposition of law that distant relatives of the CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 4 husband are normally named by an estranged wife. The distant relatives normally have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the couple. Applying the aforesaid principle, the petitioner is a distant relative as he is related to the boy in a way that his wife Bimla Devi is real sister of Saroj Kapoor, who is mother of the husband and, as such, he is Masar of husband of the complainant. This Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh v. Amandeep Kaur and another reported as 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 616, in the similar facts held as under:- “5. It is well settled that when distant relatives of a husband are named by an estranged wife, her mere version cannot be accepted as final against all the relatives. Distant relatives, in the normal course, will have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the couple. To prevent abuse of process of law, mere allegation against distant relatives cannot be accepted as final. Reference may be made to judgements in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) RCR (Crl.) 699 (P&H); Gurmeet Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1993 (1) RCR (Crl.) 354 (P&H); Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2000(3) (sic) 742: Inderjit Singh and others v. Sm.t Sushma Rani, 1998(1) RCR (Crl.) 527 (P&H); Jasbir Kaur and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1990 (2) RCR (Crl.) 243 (P&H); Radha Rani v. CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 5 Parmod Kumar Oberoi, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 491; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695: AIR 2000 SC 2324 and Rishi Anand and another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 272: 2002 (4) SCC 72. 6. Applying this test, the petitioner being maternal uncle and separately settled, cannot be held to have misappropriated the Istridhan, after six years of the marriage. If he had been entrusted with any property of the complainant, the same would have been claimed by her husband with whom she lived for more than four years and had a child also.” Similar view was also held in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, which reads thus:- “22. In Rajinder Mohan Kashyap's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Saini, this Court while quashing the proceedings qua some of the family members of in-laws of the wife has also observed that it has become a tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate all the family members, even some time the distant relations, on the vague allegations. In the said judgement this Court has relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 6 M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997 (4) RCR (Crl) 761 (SC) in which their Lordships have observed as under:- “.......Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused.” Thus, it is generally seen when marriage fails, there is a tendency that the wife ropes in all the relations of the husband with the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty. In the present case, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant have been found innocent. The petitioner is the 'Massar' of the husband of the complainant and is a distant relative. He has nothing to gain. Vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Even from the reading of the FIR, no offence appears to have been made out against the petitioner under Section 406 and 4989-A of Indian Penal Code. Allegations of cruelty and misappropriation are not made out against the petitioner from the bare perusal of the FIR. As such, CRM No. M 25105 of 2008 7 the present FIR against the petitioner is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing facts and the settled principle of law as also taking into account the vague allegations levelled against the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed and FIR No. 160 dated 08.08.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner is quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge January 27, 2010 mohan