Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2009 Gurinder Singh and others ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Vikas Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.387 dated 30.12.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code “IPC”- for short), Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. The case of the complainant/respondent No.2 as per the Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 2 FIR is that she got married to Navrose Singh @ Raja on 23.11.2003. Sufficient dowry was given by the parents of the complainant/respondent No.2 at the time of her marriage. However, after 15 days of marriage, Navrose Singh, his mother and younger brother started taunting her (respondent No.2) on account of insufficient dowry and raised a demand of car. Efforts regarding reconciliation proved a futile. After the birth of a child, father of the complainant/respondent No.2 gave Rs.50,000/- in cash to her mother-in-law so that they could purchase a motor cycle and Rs.10,000/- were given for the relatives. One gold ring, Rs.11,000/- in cash and two gold chains were also given to Navrose Singh. Complainant/respondent No.2 was pressurized to withdraw the FDs of Rs.25,000/- each by her mother-in-law, which were given to the complainant/respondent No.2 by her father at the time of marriage. Even thereafter, the complainant/respondent No.2 was tortured by her husband, his mother and younger brother. In addition to this, maternal father-in-law namely Gurinder Singh and Ravinder Pal Singh and their wives Harvinder Kaur and Maninder Kaur respectively, who were residing near the matrimonial home of the complainant/respondent No.2, also started instigating the mother-in- law of the complainant/respondent No.2 not to settle her in the matrimonial home so that Navrose Singh could be got re-married to some other girl where they would get more dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 3 petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers of the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are their wives. They have no concern with the matrimonial affairs of respondent No.2. Moreover, in case a car was demanded by the husband of respondent No.2, the same would be used by him and not by the petitioners, In fact, now the relations between the petitioners and the family of the husband of respondent No.2 are not cordial although initially petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had given financial support to the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were instrumental in instigating the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 not to settle her in the matrimonial home. There is force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers of the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are their wives. The allegations levelled against them are general in nature and have apparently been made to rope them in the criminal proceedings being relations of husband of the complainant. Para 4 of the petition is reproduced herein-below:- “That it is also worthwhile to mention over here that even the relations between the petitioner No. 1 and 3 with their own sister Parvinder kaur are very strained. The differences has grown so much that Parvinder Kaur and Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 4 her family i.e. Navrose Singh and Navgeet Singh did not even attend the marriage of only son of petitioners No. 3 and 4 namely Yadwinder Singh on 10.4.2005. They are not at visiting terms with each other. The reason behind this rift is that while the family of Parvinder Kaur and Navrose Singh got disturbed because of the death of father of Navrose Singh, petitioners No. 1 and 3 gave them financial support, brought them form Ludhiana to Amritsar, launched the business to Pharmaceutical wherein, Parvinder Kaur and her family members were active members whereas family members of the petitioners were sleeping members. The business flourished with the passage of time and what used to pinch the Parvinder Kaur and her sons Navrose Singh and Navgeet Singh that while they were putting all the efforts and hard work, why were the petitioners earning equal amount of profit. While forgetting that equal amount of investment was made by the petitioners in the said business and the business only flourished because of links, guidance and experience of the petitioners. The relations between the families of the petitioners and family of Parvinder Kaur i. e. with Sister became bad to worse and they had completely stopped interacting with each other. The situation became so bad that Yadwinder Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Singh, son of the petitioner No. 3 and 4 refused to sit along with Navgeet Singh in their joint business and he i.e. only son of the petitioner No.3 and 4, because of this strained relations, has left India and gone to Australia by leaving his own parents also.” Although the contentions in para 4 of the petition have been denied by respondent No.2 in her reply yet merely because petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had given financial support to the mother-in- law, husband and brother-in-law of respondent No.2 does not lead to the inference that they would also interfere in the matrimonial affairs of respondent No.2. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 6 Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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 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 no 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 7 offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of 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 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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.” Thus, in the present case a reading of the FIR leads to the inference that the petitioners have been roped in this case being relations of the husband of respondent No.2. Continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but abuse of process of Criminal Misc. No.M-1703 of 2008 (O&M) 8 Court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.387 dated 30.12.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2009 anita