Crl. Misc. No.M-30264 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-30264 of 2009 Date of decision: October 12, 2010. Mandeep Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for respondent No.2 despite service. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): A ring ceremony of Kiranpal Kaur, daughter of complainant- respondent No.2, was solemnized with Charanjit Singh, son of Bikar Singh, on 28.2.2007. However, the proposed alliance, after the ring ceremony, could not fructify into marriage. Gamdur Singh – respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Sections 2/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. In the complaint, he named 10 persons as accused. A perusal of list of accused reveals that not only Charanjit Singh, with whom Kiranpal was to be married, but his mother, his younger brother and younger married sister, Masser (proposed husband's mother's sister's husband), Massi (proposed husband's mother's sister) and their three Crl. Misc. No.M-30264 of 2009 -: 2 :- children (two daughters and one son), along with one another Massar have been impleaded as accused. In the complaint, it is stated that when the ring ceremony/Shagan was performed, Rs.8.00 lacs were spent, out of which Rs.6.00 lacs were put in the lap of Charanjit Singh and other relations were also given one gold ring each, along with some cash. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class vide summoning order dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P- 4) had summoned all the accused. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-1), being false and frivolous and the order of summoning (Annexure P-4) passed thereon. The Courts have from time to time observed that it is a common tendency in matrimonial litigation to implicate as many members of the bridegroom's family and relations as may be possible. The husband has not come forward to seek quashing of the FIR. The present petition has been filed by mother of Charanjit Singh, his younger brother and younger married sister, along with other relations, who include two Massers, one Massi and their three children. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Bhaskar Lal Sharma & anr. v. Monica, 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 866 to contend that mere presentation of gifts to relations of the husband will not constitute offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. No body has caused appearance for respondent No.2. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhan & Anr., 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 45, wherein it has been held that in most of the complaints, the net is widened too far and distant relations are also involved. It has been further stated that in such cases, the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to save the relations Crl. Misc. No.M-30264 of 2009 -: 3 :- of the husband from unnecessary harassment. The arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners being Massi and Massar of husband of the complainant and their children, had nothing to gain from the matrimonial alliance and demand of dowry, at their instance, seems unjustifiable. This Court tends to rely upon the observations made by Hon'ble the apex Court in Preeti Gupta's case (supra) and hold that the possibility that the petitioners, except petitioner No.2, were falsely implicated, just to put pressure upon Charanjit Singh, fiancee of the daughter of the complainant, cannot be ruled out. After hearing Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be accepted qua all petitioners, except petitioner No.2 – Amarjit Kaur, mother of Charanjit Singh with whom alliance of daughter of respondent No.2 was proposed, as the other petitioners, being relations, herein have been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. Hence, the present petition is accepted qua petitioners No.1, 3 to 9 and the impugned complaint, Annexure P-1, and with summoning order, Annexure P-4, are quashed qua them. Since, Amarjit Kaur, petitioner No.2 is stated to be an old lady, her personal appearance shall remain exempted subject to her filing an undertaking that she shall cause her appearance as and when required by the trial court. She shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in her absence, but in the presence of her counsel, shall be binding upon her. The trial court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] October 12, 2010. Judge kadyan