CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 17, 2011 Rittu .....Petitioner VERSUS Preeti ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in a complaint case filed by respondent-Preeti for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC. The petitioner is a sister-in-law of the complainant, who was unmarried at the time of the marriage of the complainant but now is living separately after her marriage in her matrimonial home. Respondent-Preeti had filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as others on the basis of which a summoning order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on 27.11.2009, summoning the petitioner as well under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC. The petitioner had CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: got married six years prior to the summoning order i.e. on 10.10.2003 and has a two years old daughter. She is living with her in-laws at Mansa in Punjab. The complainant got married with Ajay Kumar, brother of the petitioner on 17.6.1995. Two children were born out of this wedlock, who are now 14 years and 8 years old respectively. As per the petitioner, the complainant was happily married and had lived with her husband for nearly 11 years but had parted company in the year 2006 and since then she is living separately with her parents. Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance on 9.9.2006, which was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Hisar. Ajay Kumar, brother of the petitioner, has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. On 20.7.2006, mother of the respondent had filed a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Hisar, making allegation of demand of dowry and the respondent having been treated with cruelty. The parties had appeared before the Incharge, Crime Branch, Women Cell, who had recorded the statements of various persons and thereafter found the complaint to be false. Yet another complaint was filed on 22.8.2007 with almost same allegations. After investigation, the police found this complaint also to be false and it was ordered to be filed on 19.10.2007. Respondent, thereafter CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: had filed complaint under Section 498A, 406, 323, 325, 326, 506, 34 IPC on 11.2.2009 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. It is alleged that there was no specific allegation made against the petitioner, who is a married sister-in-law of the complainant. Otherwise entire family members of the petitioner have been roped in. Still, no specific allegation of any harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry or beating is made against the petitioner. Despite that, the Trial Magistrate has summoned the petitioner also to face trial for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for quashing of complaint and the summoning order qua her. The main ground of attack is that this complaint has been filed at this belated stage and much after the date of the marriage of the petitioner, which was performed in the year 2003. If any allegation could at all be made against the petitioner, the same would pertain to a period prior to 2003, for which even the complaint in the year 2009 may be barred due to limitation. Besides, it is urged that there is no allegation made against the petitioner in the entire complaint and as such, the petitioner has been unduly summoned without application of mind. Despite seeking various opportunities, no reply was filed but when the case came up for hearing on CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: 14.10.2011, the counsel for the respondent pleaded for opportunity to file reply, which was granted and accordingly case was adjourned for today. Reply has now been filed. In the reply, the complainant has stated that her specific case is that all the family members of the petitioner, including the petitioner, had been harassing, humiliating and torturing the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry since 1995. Obviously, this allegation is made by the complainant being fully aware that the petitioner had got married in the year 2003 and since then is living with her in- laws at Mansa in Punjab. The complainant-respondent even has conceded that she had been living with her husband for more than 11 years but would state that the accused persons were not happy with the dowry articles. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the photostat of the original complaint filed by the respondent, where initially the complaint was drafted against only three persons as respondents but the name of the petitioner was added at No.4 with a different type writer in the heading of the complaint, which is quite apparent to even a naked eye. Obviously, no allegations were otherwise specifically levelled against the petitioner and mere mention of her name in the array of respondents is being projected as the allegation in the complaint being against all the accused persons as she CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 5 }: is also the respondent. The copy of the complaint handed over during the course of arguments has been kept on record. It can not be disputed that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It has also emerged from the record that the petitioner was married and left the house of her parents much before the differences arose, leading to the complainant leaving her matrimonial home in the year 2006. Allegation in the complaint that all the family members were harassing the complainant ever since the date of her marriage would clearly show that the complainant had never complained of it till the year 2006, when she parted company with her husband. Even thereafter, two or three attempts made by the petitioner but she remained unsuccessful as the police found the allegations to be false. It would, thus, clearly emerge that there is really no offence made out against the petitioner from the allegations as contained in the complaint. The vague and stale general allegations, if any, made against the petitioner being a family member, when she was unmarried and was just 14 years old, would not justify order of her summoning to face prosecution for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC at this belated stage. The delayed approach on the part of the complainant may in a way lead to violate the fundamental right of the petitioner CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-3203 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 6 }: guaranteed to her under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, even if one is to assume that some semblance of allegations against her prior to the date of her marriage are alleged. Obviously, the petitioner was in no position to cause any harm or harassment of the complainant after 2003 and in any event, there is no such allegation made in the complaint. The general and vague allegation against the petitioner, if any, would relate to the period when she was unmarried and certainly can be termed as stale. This case may be an example of often advanced criticism of misuse of this provision and tendency on the part of estranged wife to misuse this well thought of and good intended provision of law. The misuse and abuse of any provision of law would need to be checked to maintain faith of the citizen in the majesty of law. Thus, the complaint against the petitioner is apparently an abuse of the process of the Court, which would call for its prevention. No offence is made out against the petitioner and, thus, the complaint and the summoning order qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. It is made clear that this order will not have any effect on the trial being proceeded against the remaining accused. The petition is allowed in the above terms. October 17 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE