Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 Date of Decision:February 19, 2009 Mandeep Kaur and another ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. ` Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 75 dated 16.3.2008 under Sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Baghapurana District Moga. Petitioners are married sisters of husband of respondent No. 2- Binder Kaur. The case of respondent No. 2 as per FIR reproduced in para 8 of the petition, is as under:- “To SSP Sahib, Moga. Subject Application for taking legal action against 1.Harpreet Singh son of Kewal Singh 2. Kewal Singh son of Jagir Singh 3. Jagdip Kaur 4. Mandeep Kaur Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {2} daughters of Kewal Singh son of Jagir Singh resident of Kudala Tehsil Malerkotla Distt. Sangrur 5. Kartar Singh @ Taro resident of Jhila Sir, it is submitted that I Bhinder Kaur daughter of Gurmail Singh son of Sardara Singh am resident of Tharaj Tehsil Baghapurana and submitted as under:- That about 2-1/2 years back I was married with accused No. 1 Harpreet Singh as per the ceremonies and at the time of marriage my parents had given the following articles. 1. clothes amounting to Rs. 50,000/- 2. furniture, petti, almirah of Rs. 50,000/- 3. Rs, 2 lacs in cash 4. coloured T.V. of Rs. 10,000/- 5. Fridge of Rs. 75,000/- 6. Gold ornaments of 10 tolas 7. Expenses on the food Rs. 80,000/- 8. Motor cycle of Rs. 40,000/- 9. 125 utensils and golden watch, Bracelet, ring of Rs. 2 lacs were given to accused No.. One ring and ear rings to the mother of accused No. 1 and Rs. 1100, 1100 and one suit to accused Nos. 3 and 4. One ring and suit to accused No. 2 and suit to accused No. 5 were given. Remaining articles were entrusted to accused No. 1 and 2 so that same can be taken from them at the appropriate time. 3. That after marriage I started living with my husband and we were blessed with a daughter and the whole expenses of Rs. 30,000/- for the said delivery were borne by my parents. 4. that at the time of work the accused 1 and 5 had taken to the doctor for getting the sex determination test and when they came to know that there was a girl in the wome then all the accused started pressurizing me for getting it aborted but I plainly refused from doing so. Then the accused started Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {3} harassing me and accused No. 1 and even beat me up for 2/3 times. 5. that after the birth of the child in spite of sending many messages the accused did not come to see the child but later on the asking of the relatives the accused No. 1, 2 and 5 came to see the child in our house at village Thraj and ask me to bring a Maruti car at the time of Chuchak ceremony. After they went away I told the same about my parents but they showed their helplessness from doing so. 6. That in spite of number of messages sent by my parents, the accused No.1 did not come to take me and after about 2 months my father brought me along with my new born child to my in-laws house and then accused Nos. 1 to 3 started taunting me that whey I have not brought car into chuchak and I was pressurized to bring a Maruti car from my parents and when I refused from doing so then the accused shunted me and my daughter out of the house. I came to the house of my parents and told them every thing about the same then my father took the panchayat thrice and requested the accused to rehabilitate me but the accused refused to do so. 7. That the accused no.2 and no.5 misguided the accused no.1 and sold his whole property and have misappropriated the amount. 8. That left with no other remedy the applicant gave an application in police station Baghapurana against the accused about 5/6 months back. The accused were called in the police station where they drop their demands and agreed to take me back to matrimonial home and the applicant went to their housed with a hope of good future Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {4} but after few days the accused no.2 started keeping a bad eye on the applicant and started talking on bad topics and when the applicant told this thing to her husband then the applicant was beaten up by the accused no.1 while stating that I am levelling false allegations against his father and the accused even slapped me number of times and the accused no.2 asked the applicant to go out of the house so as to enable him to get married. 9. That left with no other alternative I told every thing to my father on telephone and last week some of the relatives requested them not to harass me and the accused clearly told that they do not want to rehabilitate me and nor they shall return the dowry articles and they have thus misappropriated the dowry. Then my father took me and my daughter along with him. All the accused in connivance with each other used to harass me and have misappropriated my dowry articles. Therefore action be taken against them and justice be given to me. Thanking you, Your's faithfully,Bhinder Kaur.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case merely because they are sisters of Harpreet Singh-husband of respondent No. 2 . There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the FIR, in question. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused including the petitioner had been harassing the complainant and had misappropriated the Istri Dhan articles. Charge has already been framed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {5} a decision of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 104, wherein it was held in paras 12 and 19 as under:- “12. The observations made above leave no manner of doubt that the wholesome jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be narrowed, confined or put in a strait-jacket. This inherent power can always be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The only constraint on the High Court is that since the power under this section is very wide, it should be exercised with great care and and caution. On the other hand, the court should not shy away from exercising this power when the accused persons are being persecuted in the guise of prosecution. Proceedings initiated and continued for oblique motives or to wreak vengeance on the other party are liable to be quashed. Proceedings are also liable to be quashed if even on the allegation being accepted in toto, prima facie no offence could be made out. 19.It, thus, become fairly evident that the court have consistently put an end to criminal proceedings which are an abuse of the process of Court. At the initial stage, at the summoning stage and even after charges have been framed, the High Court has the inherent power to quash proceedings and to pass such orders as are necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {6} contains a non-obstante clause to the effect that nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit the powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, filing of the charge-sheet in Court does not in any manner affect the amplitude of the wholesome jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only rider being, that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof” In Rishi Anand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1531, the Apex Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because there were no allegations of specific nature to connect the accused with the alleged offence under Section 406 IPC. There was nothing in the FIR to show that the articles were entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage. The accused had gone to USA after his brief stay in India. 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. A perusal of the FIR, in question reveals that Rs. 1100/- and one suit was given to the petitioners at the time of marriage. It is also averred in the FIR, in question, that all the accused pressurized respondent No. 2 to get an abortion done as she was carrying a female foetus. There is also an averment that petitioner No. 2 and accused Harpreet Singh and Kewal Singh also pressurized respondent No. 2 to bring a Maruti car from Crl. Misc. No. M-17267 of 2008 {7} her parent at the time of birth of a child. Hence, it is evident that petitioners have been roped in this case merely because they are sisters of husband of respondent No. 2. The allegations levelled in the FIR, in question, quo the petitioners are general in nature. Only Rs. 1100/- and one suit was allegedly given to each of the petitioners at the time of marriage and the same may have been given as gifts. Since, the petitioners are married and are residing in their matrimonial homes, there can be no occasion for them to raise a demand of a car or interfere in her matrimonial life. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 75 dated 16.3.2008 under Sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Baghapurana District Moga and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 19, 2009 PARAMJIT