CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.07.2010 Gurpreet Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 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 Criminal Procedure of Code for quashing of FIR No. 60 dated 06.02.2009 under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar District Amritsar City. The present petitioner is unmarried brother-in-law. He is an international Hockey player and is a part of National Hockey Team of India. CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 2 It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the assignment for his country side, he hardly remains at his house. Most of the time, he is either out of the country playing matches for his side or is away for attending conditioning camps which are held for hockey players at various places throughout India and that by virtue of the status of the petitioner as an international players of hockey, the petitioner has been given a job as a Custom Officer on the Airport. It was further contended that the entire family has been enroped, whereas, a report of DSP, Sub Division I, Sadar, Amritsar City (P-3) and inquiry report (P-4) duly accepted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar City shows that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioner were not proved. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, disputed the same and stated that the petitioner has not been associated with Hockey after the year 2007. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Vide order dated 04.09.2009, this Court had adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner to place on record the material showing that the petitioner was still member of National Hockey Team. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner filed an application (CRM 45809 of 2009) and placed on record certificate, Annexure A-1, showing that even after 2007 i.e. the date of marriage of his brother, the petitioner continued to be associated with the game of Hockey. The said certificate is issued by the Manager Air India Hockey Team to the petitioner certifying that he represented Air India in various domestic tournament all over India and also CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 3 represented Air India in the Mumbai Super League 2009-10 held in Mumbai. Even otherwise, no reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. However, reply of the State was adopted. The State, in their reply, have not denied the averments made by the petitioner in his petition that he was a regular player of national level team and normally remains away from the place of residence either for playing matches or for attending coaching camps. 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 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 CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 4 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 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. CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 5 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 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.” The above principle is applicable in the facts of the present case as well. The petitioner is unmarried brother-in-law and due to his CRM No. M 24769 of 2009 6 assignments, he is hardly ever at home. He appears to have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute and has been enroped in only to wreck vengeance as is the general tendency in such like matrimonial cases. The allegations are vague and general in nature. The entire family is enroped. Accordingly and in the view of the above discussion, FIR No. 60 dated 06.02.2009 under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar District Amritsar City and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner are quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 12.07.2010 mohan