Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2010 Daljit Kaur & another ........Petitioners Versus Simarjit Kaur ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint No.53-1 dated 2.4.2007 titled as Simarjit Kaur Versus Harpreet Singh & others, under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/148/149/120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC')and under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar summoning the petitioners and other co-accused under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC (Annexure P-2). The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “1. That the marriage of the complainant took place on 9.2.2004 at Abohar according to Sikh rites and in this marriage her parents, brothers and relatives spent about Rs. Two lacs and gave sufficient articles in the shape of Ishtri Dhan and cash also as detailed in Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 2 annexure. 2. That at the time of departure of Doli, accused No.1 was entrusted with one gold ring, one wrist watch, Rs.5100/- cash, one Karra gold, one pair ear ring and five turbans, accused no.2 was entrusted with one petti iron containing 151 utensils of steel and brass, one cooker, one pair ear ring, one ring for complainant, 8 beddings of winter and 8 bedding of summer, accused no.3 was entrusted with one double bed, one Peera set, one central table, one dressing table, one gold ring, accused no.4 was entrusted with one sewing Machine, one television, one iron trunk containing 51 suits of complainant, 21 suits for distribution, one pair ear ring, one ring, accused no.5 was entrusted with one gold ring, one make up kit, 7 tola ornaments of silver, accused no.6 was entrusted with one gold ring, one cooler, 8 sheets of double bed and accused no.7 was entrusted with one gold ring, four chairs, 4 blankets, one press, one mixer. 3. That after marriage, complainant started residing at her matrimonial home at Dhani Chirag and started performing her matrimonial obligations but the behaviour of the accused was not good with the complainant and they used to tease her every day that they could not get dowry as per their desire but the complainant tolerated all this in order to keep her matrimonial house in-tact. Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 3 4. That accused no.1 is husband of complainant, accused no.2 is the mother in law of the complainant, accused no.3 is father in law, accused no.4 is real mother of accused no.1, accused no.5 is sister in law, accused no.6 is brother in law (Jeth), accused no.7 is brother in law (Devar) of the complainant and they all in connivance with each other used to instigate the accused no.1 to demand more dowry that complainant should bring one motor cycle and Rs. 20,000/- cash from her parental home and then their lust for dowry would be satisfied. 5. That the complainant requested the accused that her parents have spent everything on her marriage and now the complainant should not be harassed for more dowry. Accused in order to get their demand of dowry fulfilled, used to give beatings to complainant and maltreated her. But the complainant tolerated all this in order to keep her matrimonial home as in-tact. After that husband of complainant left her and went to her real mother's house at Makhu and thereafter accused no.2 & 3 also sent me at Makhu and out of their wedlock one girl child Lovdeep Kaur was born there. 6. That all the accused in connivance with each other humiliated the complainant even at Madhu for more dowry. Accused no.1 is addicted to many bad habits. He is consuming liquor and taking opium and Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 4 poppy husk. Accused no.1 pressurized the complainant that if she does not bring motor cycle and cash form her parents then she should do the business of selling opium and poppy husk and to give money to her in laws family but complainant flatly refused. 7. That the accused in connivance with each other turned out the complainant and her daughter in three wearing clothes and said that till their demand of dowry is not fulfilled they will not allow the complainant to rehabilitate in her matrimonial home. 8. That the mental and physical condition of complainant did not remain proper and by remembering the harassment committed by the accused upon the complainant, her condition becomes more serious. 9. That in the month of August 2006 parents of the complainant took a panchayat consisting of Baldev Raj son of Sain Dass, Balbir Singh son of Pal Singh, Major Singh son of Joginder Singh, Baldev Singh son of Ghasita Singh, Nirmal Singh son of Chanchal Singh, Tara Singh son of Ghasita Singh, Jeet Singh son of Sohan Singh, Mehal Singh son of Harbans Singh, Mohinder Singh son of Harnam Singh, Dara Singh son of Bachan Singh, Sarwan Singh son of Jagtar Singh, Ram Singh son of Charan Singh, residents of Chirag Dhani, Abohar met the accused and requested them to rehabilitate the complainant and her daughter but the Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 5 accused remained stick to their demand of motor cycle and Rs.20,000/- cash and said that until their demands are not fulfilled they would not rehabilitate the complainant. Panchayat demanded back the Istri Dhan of the complainant but accused told that they have misappropriated the same and they can do whatever they like. Panchayat came back disappointed. 10. That thereafter the complainant moved application to SSP, Ferozepur who marked the same to DSP (D) Ferozepur. Police recorded the statement of complainant and her witnesses but did not initiate any action against the accused and about 15 days ago the police suggested to go to the court for the redressal of their grievance. 11. That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized at Abhor and the Istri Dhan was also entrusted to the accused at Abohar and the complainant also performed the duties of a wife at Abohar and Makhu and the demand of dowry was earlier made in Chirag Dhani and thereafter at Makhu. The accused did not allow the complainant to go any where according to her own will and all the accused have also beaten the complainant. 15. That the mental and physical condition of the complainant has now improved to some extent and this complaint is being filed without any delay....... ” Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 6 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves dismissal. 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 7 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 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very Crl. Misc. No. M-21238 of 2010 (O&M) 8 sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the complaint reveals that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant and the husband of the complainant was the adopted son of the petitioners. There are serious allegations levelled against the petitioners. Vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2008 petitioners and Harpreet Singh have been summoned to face the trial. It would not be in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. The impugned order has been passed as the complainant had been successfully in making out a prima facie case against the petitioners by leading preliminary evidence in support of her averments in the complaint. Dismissed. (SABINA) July 27, 2010 JUDGE Anand