Crl. Misc. No. 25240-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 25240-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009 *** Teja Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Harjit Singh. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J.S. Gharuan, Advocate for respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint dated 16.7.2005, titled as Harjit Singh Vs. Teja Singh & Ors. and summoning order dated 5.7.2007 by dint of which they have been summoned under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC therein. Before proceeding further, it is apt to mention here that Shinder Kaur was married with one Megha Singh, after the death of his earlier wife Ajmer Kaur. Out of the wedlock of Megha Singh and Shinder Kaur two child are born namely Lakhbir Kaur and Lakhdeep Singh. Megha Singh died on 13.2.2005, while Shinder Kaur breathed her last on 5.7.2006. Harjit Singh complainant is stated to be the step brother of Shinder Kaur. Petitioner No.1 is elder brother of Megha Singh, petitioner No.2 is his wife whereas petitioner No.3 is their son. Petitioner No.4 is the son of petitioner No.3 while petitioner No.5 is the son of brother of Ajmer Kaur, deceased wife of Megha Singh. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint before the Court on 16.7.2005 against the present petitioners with the allegations that after the death of Megha Singh, the husband of his sister Shinder Kaur, the accused persons, in connivance with each other, started harassing and Crl. Misc. No. 25240-M of 2008 2 humiliating his sister and raised a demand of 1.5 lacs for keeping Shinder Kaur with them. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused persons mis-appropriated the dowry articles of Shinder Kaur, given in the marriage and when the complainant and others visited his sister, then the accused persons quarrled with them. Ultimately, the accused persons threw his sister out of the matrimonial house and kept her two children with them and now his sister is residing with him. In preliminary evidence the complainant besides examining himself as CW.1 got examined Hem Raj, Bakhshish Singh and Jagsir Singh as CW.2 to 4, on the basis of which process has been issued against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case the process of Court has been mis-used by the complainant, just to his personal benefits. Shinder Kaur, during her lifetime, never complained of any harassment or cruelty meted out to her by the petitioners on account of demand of dowry and this was the reason the impugned complaint was filed by Harjit Singh and not by Shinder Kaur, irrespective of the fact that she was very much alive at the time when the complaint in hand was filed. Even Shinder Kaur was neither cited as a witness nor was produced before the Court. According to the learned counsel, the whole story has been concocted by the complainant only to get the share of Shinder Kaur, inherited by her after the death of her husband Megha Singh, which has now fallen to the share of her children, who are residing with the petitioners. On the other hand, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the maintainability of present petition has been questioned by contending that the petitioners have not preferred any revision petition before the court of Session and have directly approached this Court. Even otherwise, the Court below, on appraisal of preliminary evidence led by the complainant has rightly issued the process against the petitioners. The arguments have been scanned. There is force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned complaint was filed on 16.7.2005. Shinder Kaur was admittedly alive at that time as she died on 5.7.2006. A perusal of impugned complaint (Annexure P-3) shows that it was filed by Harjit Singh, without mentioning the name of Crl. Misc. No. 25240-M of 2008 3 any witness, sought to be examined. It is highly improbable that Shinder Kaur, in whose respect some offence has been allegedly committed by the petitioners, has been kept away from the Court. There is nothing in the impugned complaint to show that what prevented Shinder Kaur and prompted the complainant to prefer the complaint himself and not through Shinder Kaur, who was living with him, as alleged in the complaint. In whole of the complaint, there is no instance to show that the petitioners were ever entrusted with dowry articles, which they allegedly misappropriated. It is own case of the complainant that Shinder Kaur was living separately from the present petitioners along with her family and the allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles and demand of dowry pertains to the period after her husband Megha Singh had died, but there is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that Shinder Kaur, during her lifetime, raised any grouse against the petitioners in relation to any demand of dowry and harassment, as sought to be projected by the complainant. The allegations, thus, seems to be omnibus and have been levelled just to drag the petitioners in the criminal proceedings in relation to harassment to Shinder Kaur on account of demand of dowry and misappropriation thereof. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the complainant as to the maintainability of the instant quashing petition is concerned, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in clear words that where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. The vague allegations in the complaint against petitioners and insufficient grounds to summon them warrant the interference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against them with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and impugned complaint and summoning order, are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 6, 2009 Jiten