CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.02.2011 Raj Kumar and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Roopak Banwal, Advocate for Mr. S K Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State None for 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. 172 dated 30.03.2008 under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 498-A, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station City, Jind. The brief facts of the present case are that the marriage of the brother of petitioner No. 2 and 3, namely, Gaurav was performed with Monika (respondent No. 2) daughter of Shri Narinder K Munjal on CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 2 25.10.2007. Whereas, petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 has since died during the pendency of the present petition. Thus, the present petition survives only qua petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The marriage of petitioner No. 2 was solemnised on 19.07.1995 i.e. much prior to the marriage of the complainant and she is living separately from the complainant and the other accused. The petitioner has no concern with the matrimonial life of the complainant and Gaurav. Similarly, the marriage of petitioner No. 3 was solemnised on 17.01.2000 i.e. much prior to the marriage of the complainant and petitioner No. 3 is also living separately from the complainant and the other accused. She too has no concern with the matrimonial life of the complainant and Gaurav. Petitioner No. 2 has three minor children, whereas, petitioner No. 3 has two minor children. A perusal of the FIR shows that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioners with respect to demand of dowry or cruelty. The allegations are general and vague. No time and date has been mentioned as to when and how complainant/respondent No. 2 was treated with cruelty. The Single Bench of 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 CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 3 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 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 CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 4 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, 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 CRM No. M 7057 of 2009 5 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 act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” 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 the present case also, all the family members have been enroped. No date and time is given to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. The allegations of entrustment of dowry articles against the present petitioners are vague. They are the married sister-in-laws and are residing separately. In the light of the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Divya alias Babli and others (supra), the present petition qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 is allowed and FIR No. 172 dated 30.03.2008 under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Jind as well as the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 21.02.2011 mohan