CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.08.2010 Manjeet Kaur alias Rano Bali and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State Mr. N K Manchanda, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2 -.- 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 167 dated 07.11.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mamdot, Hansi and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner No. 1 is the aunt (chachi) of the husband of the complainant, whereas, petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. The age of the petitioner No. 2 at the time of marriage was 12-13 years and presently he is just 17-18 years old. CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 2 The marriage of the complainant took place with Sukhchain Singh son of Desa Singh in November, 2004 as per Sikh rites and rituals. After few days of the marriage, a dispute arose between the complainant and her husband i.e. Sukhchain Singh and the relations inter se became strained. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint dated 12.08.2008 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana who ordered an inquiry into the same and the present FIR was registered against the husband-Sukhchain Singh, Chhindo Bai-mother-in-law, Desa Singh-father-in-law of the complainant and also against the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations in the FIR are vague. The entire family has been enroped. Petitioner No. 1 is the aunt (chachi) of the complainant, whereas, petitioner No. 2 who is brother-in-law of the complainant, a boy of 12-13 years of age at the time of marriage of the complainant, are enroped only to harass the family. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand, argued that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the police and the present petitioners were found guilty and only thereafter, the present FIR was registered against them as well as other accused. It is further stated that specific allegations of outraging the modesty of the complainant has been made against petitioner No. 2, whereas, petitioner No. 1 was residing in the same village. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. The role attributed to petitioner No. 1 reads as under:- “After few days of the marriage, my in-laws including my husband Sukhchain Singh, mother-in-law Chhindo Bai, aunt (chachi) of my husband Rano wife of Darshan Singh and father-in-law Desa Singh started taunting me CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 3 that they were getting a motor cycle and other valuable items in dowry but what have you brought.” The allegation is vague and not specific. The said allegation is made against petitioner No. 1 jointly along with other closely related family members. Obviously the name of petitioner No. 1 has been added being a relative of the husband of the complainant whereas, the allegations qua demand is not made against petitioner No. 2. The allegation levelled against petitioner No. 2 reads thus:- “In the absence of my husband, they enforced my brother-in-law Sukhwinder alias Babbi upon me who tried to outrage my modesty.” No date and time of the incident is mentioned. The said allegation although may invite offence under Section 354 IPC, does not invite commission of the offence under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, petitioner No. 2 was minor at the time of marriage 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 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 CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 4 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, therefore, CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 5 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 and the Courts have to CRM No. M 21705 of 2009 6 act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” The above view has been consistently held in various judgements rendered by this Court. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned that petitioner No. 1 is the aunt (chachi) and petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 was living separately and has no concern or connection whatsoever with the matrimonial dispute of the complainant. There is no allegation qua entrustment of any dowry article or misappropriation against the present petitioners. All the allegations are vague and general against the present petitioners. Bald assertion in the FIR would not sufficient to constitute any offence against the present petitioners. Lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurise the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. In view of the discussion made above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 167 dated 07.11.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mamdot, Hansi. as well as the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 11.08.2010 mohan