Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 1 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 1. Manjit Kaur d/o Surjit Singh, wife of Paramjit Singh, r/o village Alfuke, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. 2. Nirmal Singh son of Surjit Singh, r/o Toori Bazar, Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. 3. Pardeep Kumar son of Surjit Singh, r/o Toori Bazar, Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur. ... Petitioners Versus Sukhwinder Kaur d/o Jalla Singh wife of Sukhchain Singh, r/o Tahliwala Bodla, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. ...Respondent Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 1. Surjit Singh son of Sunder Singh, r/o Toori Bazar, Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur. 2. Amarjit Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Sunder Singh, r/o Toori Bazar, Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur. ... Petitioners Versus Sukhwinder Kaur d/o Jalla Singh wife of Sukhchain Singh, r/o Tahliwala Bodla, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. ...Respondent Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007, filed by Manjit Kaur, Nirmal Singh, and, Pardeep Kumar, petitioners, and, Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008, filed by Surjit Singh, and, Amarjit Kaur, petitioners, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Criminal Complaint, titled as, 'Sukhwinder Kaur Vs. Sukhchain Singh etc.', under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, summoning order dated 12.02.07, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. 2. The aforesaid complaint, was brought into being by Sukhwinder Kaur, complainant, on the ground, that her marriage with Sukhchain Singh, was solemnized, on 01.10.03, in village Kahna Dhesia, District Jalandhar, by way of Anandkarj. At the time of marriage, the parents of Sukhchain Singh, did not demand any dowry, from the parents of Sukhwinder Kaur. After the marriage, the complainant started residing, in her matrimonial home, where, she was subjected to cruelty, by her in-laws, in connection with the demand of dowry, in the shape of Rs. 1 lac, in cash. But the complainant, expressed her inability to meet the same. On 12.03.04, Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 the husband of the complainant alongwith his parents, despite knowing fully well that she was pregnant, gave her severe beatings and turned her out of her matrimonial home, asking her to bring Rs. 1 lac, in cash, from her parents. Consequently, she moved an application, to the Police. Thereafter, the Panchayats, were called, and the matter was compromised. The complainant was rehabilitated, in her matrimonial home, after giving various dowry articles, to her in-laws. But after some time, she was again subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand thereof. 3. The trial Court, after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioners, as accused, to face trial, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petitions, have been filed, by the accused-petitioners. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that, no dowry, was ever demanded or accepted, nor misappropriated by the petitioners. He has further submitted that petitioner No. 1, in Crl. Misc. No. M-50298 of 2008, is the married sister-in-law i.e. sister of the husband, whereas, petitioners No. 2 and 3, are the brothers of the husband. In Crl. Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008, petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. He has further submitted that, Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 4 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 even in the complaint, only vague allegations, regarding the demand of dowry and entrustment thereof, were made. He has further submitted that, as per the complainant, a compromise, was arrived at, and when, after the compromise, the husband of the complainant, went to bring her back, the articles of dowry i.e. one ring of gold, weighing one tola, one chain of gold, weighing one tola, one bracelet, weighing two toals, suits etc. were given. He has further submitted that the compromise, was arrived at, in the year 2004, which is Annexure P3, and it was not mentioned therein, regarding the articles, having been given. He has further submitted that the complaint, was filed, in the year 2007, just with a view to wreck vengeance, against the petitioners. He has further submitted that the continuation of complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, would amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioners, should be quashed, 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 abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 5 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 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 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 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 following categories 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 6 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 7 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudgent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 8 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 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 allegations, contained in the complaint, do not disclose the commission of an offence, or whether the same are so absurd, as no prudent man, would be able to act upon the same, so as to come to the conclusion, that an offence had been committed, by a particular person. There are only general and vague allegations of entrustment of dowry and subjecting the complainant to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry in the complaint. It is evident, from the allegations, contained in the complaint that, at the time of marriage, members of the in-laws family told that, no dowry would be accepted. Accordingly, no dowry, was given. Had the members of the family of Sukhchain Singh, been greedy, they would have certainly demanded and accepted the dowry. The compromise, was arrived at, in the year 2004, whereas, the complaint, was filed, in 2007. If immediately, after the compromise, the petitioners, went to bring back Sukhwinder Kaur, complainant, and, at that time, the dowry articles, were given, then what was the hitch, in filing the complaint, soon thereafter. On the basis of the vague allegations, contained in the complaint, summoning order dated 12.02.07, could not be illegally passed. It is a matter of common experience, that a tendency, has developed, that when the relations, between the husband and wife become strained, the bride and her parents, are Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007 9 Criminal Misc. No. M-4539 of 2008 always out and out, to rope in, as many members of the family of the bride-groom, as they can, with a view to wreck vengeance. This practice, is required, to be curbed. The trial Court, was, thus, wrong, in summoning the petitioners, for the offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The complaint, and the summoning order, if allowed to continue, shall certainly amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The same, are, thus, liable to be quashed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-50298 of 2007, is accepted. Criminal Complaint, titled as, 'Sukhwinder Kaur Vs. Sukhchain Singh etc.', under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, summoning order dated 12.02.07, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners. 21.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE