Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.12.2009. Roshan Lal and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for respondent no.2. S. D. ANAND, J. Petitioners Roshan Lal and Vijinder are father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the estranged wife of former's son and latter's brother Krishan; while petitioners Mrs. Sunil and Jai Veer are sister-in-law and her husband respectively of the estranged lady. Respondent no.2 notified the police (vide FIR Annexure P-1) that she had been subjected to dowry-related harassment by her husband and his relations i.e. petitioners herein who had been taunting her from the very inception of the marriage for having brought inadequate dowry and they used to harass her in order to force her to bring more dowry from her natal family. She had been bringing facts to the notice of her father whose remonstration with Krishan and also petitioner Roshan Lal did not bear any fruitful result, though the latter duo initially assure the former that they would behave properly. One one particular occasion, respondent no.2 conceived. She brought to conception to the notice of her husband Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -2- ***** Krishan. Thereafter, she was brought to Bhisham Hospital by her husband and also petitioners Smt. Sunil and Jai Veer on 11.9.2006 on the pretext of getting her certain medicines. There, she was made to abort the child. Even in the hospital record, name of respondent no.2 was incorrectly given as Sita and a threat was held out to her that she would be done to death if she disclosed anything to any body. Thereafter, at one point of time, she was belaboured by her husband and turned out of the matrimonial hose with a direction that she should bring a sum of Rs.5 lacs from her father or else she would be done to death. On being told about the incident, father of respondent no.2 brought her along to the house of the petitioners herein and held out an assurance that demanded amount shall be paid up. On that assurance, respondent no.2 was allowed to stay at the matrimonial house. When the natal family of respondent no.2 could not fulfill the promise, mother-in-law of respondent no.2 told her that she would be made to consume powdered glass. On 27.11.2006, Krishan and petitioner Sunil gave respondent no.2 poison laced milk to drink. After consuming it, respondent no.2 felt dizzy and started vomiting. In the meantime, a female from the neighbourhood came over there and wanted to know what it was all about. It was thereupon that respondent no.2 was taken to Dr. D.S.Chaudhary who, on finding her condition deteriorate referred her to C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar. Krishan and petitioners Sunil and Jai Veer got respondent no.2 admitted to C.M.C.Hospital, Hisar. When she regained consciousness, Krishan told her that she should make a statement as per their wishes to the effect that she had consumed cuff syrup and that she also consumed an insecticide which was lying nearby by mistake. Krishan and also petitioners Sunil and Jai Veer told respondent no.2 that if she made any statement implicating them, she would be done to death and Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -3- ***** that they would also do away with her two brothers. On account of her being under fear, respondent no.2 make a similar statement exonerating the petitioners herein and her husband Krishan. After she had made that statement on 10.11.2006, she was belaboured on 10.12.2006 and was abandoned at a place which fell between village Chandeni and village Ramal Vaas. She was fetched by one Jai Veer of their village. He took her to her natal house and she intimated the facts to her father who took her to Dr. D.K.Puri, Rohtak. Respondent no.2 is still under his treatment. In spite of the best efforts made by father of respondent no.2 to rehabilitate her at the matrimonial house, the proposition did not materialize favourably on account of diffidence on the part of the petitioners herein and Krishan to get respondent no.2 back in the matrimonial home only if she would bring along the demanded amount. After about 15-16 days lodging of the FIR, Krishan brought some bad characters to her natal house in order to do away with her. The plea raised, in support of the plea for quashment, is that the petitioners being only relations of respondent no.2 cannot be said to be beneficiary of any dowry demand and the continuance of prosecution against them would amount to miscarriage of justice and an abuse of process of Court. A plea urged in support of the view aforementioned, is that Krishan is in employment as Agriculture Officer with the Bank of India and has been posted at various places where he resided with respondent no.2. The plea raised thereby is that petitioners herein cannot be held accountable for any alleged dowry-related harassment. The respondent reiterated the correctness of the impugned prosecution by averring that the validity or otherwise thereof shall have to Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -4- ***** be examined by the learned Trial Court only on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. I have not been persuaded myself to find force in the plea on behalf of the petitioner for quashment of the impugned prosecution. The reasons therefor are as under:- There are precise allegations attributing incriminating role to all the petitioners herein. Whether they are separate in mess and residence from Krishan and respondent no.2 is a matter which shall have to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court on the basis of material presented before it. The present is not a case of complete want of attributions to the petitioners herein. In such an eventuality, it will be for the learned Trial Court to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the respective allegations of the parties but only after both the parties have had the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of whatever stances they have adopted at the trial. In view of the factual scenario aforementioned, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon order dated 22.1.2009 passed Criminal Misc. No.M-18404 of 2008 (Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and another ) and order dated 3.7.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-46408 of 2007 (Baljit Singh and others Vs. Harpreet Kaur and another) is misconceived. It would be apparent from a persual of judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench (Sabina, J.) of this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), the dowry articles therein had already been recovered at the instance of husband and mother-in-law of the complainant therein. Further, in that case, a finding of fact recorded was that the petitioners therein had been roped in just on account of their being relations of the husband of the complainant. The same applies to the Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -5- ***** judgment rendered by another Coordinate Bench (Arvind Kumar, J.) of this Court in Baljit Singh's case (supra). In recording a finding, this Court had been governed by the fact that the allegations therein had been made in an omnibus manner. However, in the present case, there are precise allegations against the petitioner herein. Quashment of a pending prosecution, which has made reasonable headway, could be a legally acceptable proposition only if there was an an inherent legal defect in the competence of the prosecution or if the prosecution presentation was perverse or illogical on the face of it. The present is not a case wherein quashment of the impugned prosecution may be ordered. The trial has already commenced. Charge in the case has been framed. Recording of prosecution evidence is in progress. No case for quashment is made out. Dismissed. December 17, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Criminal Misc. No.M-28687 of 2008 -6- *****