Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.03.2010 1. Kuldeep Singh s/o Bakhshish Singh; 2. Balbir Kaur w/o Kuldeep Singh; both r/o village Gumtala, P.S. Bilga, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab through SSP Jalandhar. 2. Amandip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh, r/o village Gumtala, Tehsil Phillaur, at present r/o village Rurk Kalan, PS Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Complaint No. 254/1/08 dated 24.12.08, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Annexure P1), and, the summoning order dated 11.05.09, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur, has been filed by the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 2 2. The complainant/respondent No. 2, filed a criminal complaint, on the allegations, that she was married to Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, on 28.02.05, at village Jandiala, in accordance with the Sikh religious rites. Kuldeep Singh, petitioner No. 1, is the real uncle of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, and, Balbir Kaur, petitioner No. 2, is the wife of Kuldeep Singh. The father of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, expired before the marriage of the complainant with him (Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh). Sufficient articles of dowry, were given, by the parents of the complainant, to the accused (petitioners). The total price of these articles, including the gold articles, was about Rs. 1 lac. In addition to the gold ornaments, the furniture was also handed over, to the accused, at the time of marriage. The price of the furniture was Rs. 30,000/-. Utensils and other household articles, were also entrusted, to the accused, value whereof was Rs. 1,70,000/-. After the marriage, Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh and the complainant resided together, in the house, at Gumtala, which was jointly used as a residence, by the petitioners. All the articles of dowry, which were entrusted, at the time of marriage, to the accused, were lying, in the house, at Gumtala. After about of one month of the marriage, Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, went to UK. Before, he left for UK, the petitioners, demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, from the parents of the complainant. They also coerced the parents of the complainant, to give more dowry. They were also teasing the complainant and her parents that, if the marriage of Mukhtiar Singh Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 3 @ Paramjit Singh, was performed with some other lady, he could easily get Tata Safari vehicle. On demand, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, was paid, to petitioners No. 1 and 2, by the parents of the complainant. Thereafter, on receipt of the documents, from Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, the complainant, left for UK. On 19.11.05, Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, brought back the complainant to India and reached village Gumtala. They resided together for 4-5 days there. Thereafter, the complainant, was taken to her parental house. It was further stated that the complainant, was tortured, from time to time, in India, in connection with the demand of dowry. It was further stated that all the dowry articles, referred to above, are still, in the custody of the petitioners and other co-petitioners (non-applicants), and they have not returned the same despite demand. They also threatened that the complainant would not be rehabilitated, until and unless, more dowry, as demanded by them is given. 3. After going through the preliminary evidence, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur, summoned the petitioners and other co-petitioners (non-applicants), for the offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 4. Respondent No. 2/complainant, was duly served, but did not come present. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 4 petitioners, are the uncle and aunt of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh. He further submitted that, the petitioners, have no concern, whatsoever, with regard to the demand of dowry and entrustment of the same, to them, as also misappropriation thereof. He further submitted that, even larger part of the alleged demand, happened in UK, and, as such, the Courts, at Phillaur, had no jurisdiction, to entertain the complaint and pass the summoning the order. He further submitted that the petitioners, being the close relatives of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, husband of the complainant, have been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. He further submitted that the complaint and the summoning order, are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be set aside. 6-A. Since, it was a complaint case, the Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State did not want to say anything. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 5 Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the complaint, or the charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence, or make out a case against the accused. 2)Where the allegations in the First Information Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 6 Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused. 4)Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 7 in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. 8. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is applicable, to the same, or not. No doubt, the petitioners, are the uncle and aunt of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, husband of the complainant. The father of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, died, Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 8 much before his marriage with the complainant. The mother of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, is residing alongwith him, in UK. They have their house at Gumtala. It is evident, from the allegations, contained in the complaint, that the articles of dowry, cash and the gold jewellery, were entrusted, to the petitioners and Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, at village Jandiala, where the marriage of the complainant with Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, took place. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-, on demand, by the petitioners, for the purpose of purchasing Tata Safari car, was also paid, to them, as per the allegations, contained in the complaint, before the complainant, left for UK. The articles of dowry, as is evident, from the allegations, contained in the complaint, are lying, in the house of Mukhtiar Singh @ Paramjit Singh, in which, the petitioners, are also residing at Gumtala. These articles of dowry, have not been returned, to the complainant, despite demand, and, as such, the same, were allegedly misappropriated. The dowry was entrusted, in India, at the time of the marriage of the complainant, which has been kept, in a house, at Gumtala, within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The demand for return of dowry, was made, at Gumtala. Under these circumstances, it could not be said, that larger part of the cause of action, accrued in UK, and the Courts, at Phillaur, had no jurisdiction. The Counsel for the petitioners, no doubt, placed reliance, on Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(2), RCR (Criminal), 956 (SC), in support of his contention that, since larger part of the offence, was Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010 9 committed, in UK, only the Courts there had jurisdiction. The facts of the aforesaid case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, the FIR, was lodged, at Jalandhar. It was quashed interalia, on the ground, that larger part of the offence, was committed, in Canada. The facts of the instant case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others' case (supra). No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioners, therefrom. At this stage, the Court, is not to go into the probable defence of the accused. The disputed facts, can also not be adjudicated upon, in the proceedings, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it is the function of the trial Court, to decide the same. Continuation of complaint and the summoning order, would not amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint and the summoning order, are, thus, not liable to be quashed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-893 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 12.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE