Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.01.2011 Ajit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Vineet Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint dated 11.09.2006 titled as Vineet Kaur vs. Harmeet Singh etc. under Sections 406/498-A IPC pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala and summoning order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the said court and further proceedings arising therefrom. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of the complainant-Vineet Kaur was solemnized with Harmeet Singh, son of petitioners No.1 and 2 and younger brother of petitioner No.3 on 25.11.2001 and one male child was born out of the said wedlock. The Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 2 relations between the couple started getting strained due to temperamental differences. Harmeet Singh, the husband of the complainant was in the habit of taking liquor of reasonable quantity, which was not being liked by his wife-Vineet Kaur. Due to non adjustment of the couple, there used to be dispute between husband and wife and sometime the complainant went to her parental home. It is further contended that a bare reading of the complaint P-2 shows that there are general and vague allegations of entrustment against all the accused. It is also stated that the petitioner No.3 was residing abroad. The couple had started living separately in the year 2004. It is further stated that the respondent was upset with her husband’s drinking habit, as such, she has enroped her entire family. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1. It is stated in the reply that in fact, the husband of the respondent had number of problems. The same were never disclosed to her or her parents prior to the marriage. He was not only addicted to liquor, drugs but also got involved in many other criminal offences. Further, the petitioners have been mainly instrumental in spoiling the life of the respondent. They have not returned her istridhan which is still with the petitioners. They have treated her with cruelty. Specific instances have been given in the complaint. Not only the respondent, even her father was not spared qua which the FIR was registered against petitioners No.1 and 3 and which fact is admitted by the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioner No.3 has been most of the time staying in India and went on to Hong-Kong only for a short operation. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners has withdrawn the petition qua petitioners No.1 and 2. As such, the petition survives only qua petitioner No.3. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued qua petitioner No.3 only. There are specific allegations against the present petitioner. Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 3 The present petitioner, who is accused No.3, started making a demand for a cash of Rs.50,000/- immediately after the marriage. Further, he used to threaten the respondent often and asked her to bring more dowry. It is further mentioned in the complaint as under :- “But on 18.07.2005, when the father of the complainant went to the market, the said Harmeet Singh, Balwinder Singh picked up the father of the complainant and took him to the house of the accused and tortured and beaten him mercilessly. However, the respectable of the locality saved the father of the complainant from the clutches of the accused and the FIR to this effect under Section 342 IPC was also registered against the accused, namely, Balwinder Singh and Harmeet Singh.” The summoning order has been passed after recording of the statement of the complainant-Rattan Lal as CW-2 and Narinder Chopra as CW-3. Specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Besides torturing her, they did not even spare her father. Admittedly, her husband was addicted to liquor and drugs. Therefore, she had no one to look upto except the other family members. In stead of giving her emotional and financial support, they turned her out. Surprisingly, instead of sympathy with a woman who is married to an alcoholic and drug addicted who needs support from the other members of the family to cope with the unfortunate situation, they have alleged in the present petition that she was hot tempered. The father of the respondent was also not spared, which is evident from the complaint itself. Having been cornered at the hands of alcoholic husband, she had to suffer inhuman attitude at the hands of the rest of the family including the present petitioner and face their taunts and mockery including demand of dowry. No doubt, sometimes vague allegations are made against the Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 4 entire family. However, in the present case, as discussed above, there are specific allegations against petitioner No.3. In similar circumstances, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as Suman vs. State of Rajasthan reported as 2009(4) RCR(Criminal) 908 dismissed the appeal challenging the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., wherein, the sister-in-law was found innocent during investigation but was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C by holding as under :- “17. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498- A IPC or the satisfaction recorded by him for issuing process against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C is vitiated by any legal infirmity and the learned Sessions Judge and High Court committed an error by refusing to quash the order passed by him. In the complaint filed by her, respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law – Rukmani Devi and nanad – Suman (the appellant herein) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air-conditioner etc. have not been given and the marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law – Rukmani Devi and nanad – Suman forcibly took the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Copper-T so that she may not give birth to any child; that nanad – Suman started instigating the husband of the complainant either on phone or otherwise and thereupon, he not only used to assault, but also humiliate and torture the complainant; that on 7.4.2002 the husband gave beating with the belan and nanad – Suman snatched her hair and forcibly removed the rings. In her statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 reiterated all the allegations. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and 4 other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing respondent No.2 and instigating her husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 5 appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand for dowry or harass respondent No.2 because she was living with her husband, Mahendra Pal at Bikaner. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 again made specific allegations against the appellant. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law, Smt. Rukmani Devi and sister-in- law, Suman had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated her husband to inflict physical torture, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate further noted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in the matter of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment and the fact that the complainant had made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and opined that prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case titled as CBI vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava reported as 2006(7) SCC 188, held that inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and in exercise of the powers the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuation of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. To exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the complaint in its entirety will have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in it. As per the allegations in the complaint, there is a specific demand of dowry. Specific allegations of cruelty has also been levelled. There is specific allegation of mental harassment and physical Crl. Misc. No.M-4110 of 2009 6 beatings. Whatever appears on the face of the FIR, shall have to be considered without any critical examination of the same. Thus, the truth of the allegation will have to be left to the trial Court. From the reading of the FIR, it does not appear that the ingredients are not made out or that the present case is the case of an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the present case is dismissed. This order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet