Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 Date of Decision: 03.08.2010 1. Balwant Singh son of Karam Singh; 2. Ram Murti @ Murti Devi wife of Balwant Singh; 3. Nachhatar Singh; 4. Pavitar Singh @ Mikka; 5. Jatinder Singh ; sons of Balwant Singh; all residents of Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Jaspal Kaur d/o Sukhdarshan Singh, r/o H. No. 310, Ward No. 17, Mohalla Yogian, Sunam, District Sangrur. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Panwar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. None for respondent No. 2. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 2 No. 122, dated 08.07.08 (Annexure P3), under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120 IPC, P.S. City Sunam, District Sangrur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. Jaspal Kaur, complainant/respondent No. 2, was married with Sarabjit Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Dhandran Road, Ludhiana, on 11.04.99. She statedly performed marriage with Avtar Singh, on 25.02.01, by concealing the factum of her earlier marriage with Sarabjit Singh, which had not been dissolved. Avtar Singh, was serving, in the army. He died on 15.08.05. The complainant/respondent No. 2, got registered the aforesaid FIR, against the petitioners, who are his father-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law, on the allegations, that her parents, had given istri-dhan, to her, for her use, as per their capacity, details whereof, were mentioned, in the list attached. It was stated that, respondent No. 2, was residing with her in-laws, as her husband, was in military service. It was further stated that, after his death, she was turned out of her bridal house, and, the petitioners, illegally retained the articles of istri-dhan, in their possession. 3. Respondent No. 2, was duly served, but was not present. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, as also the Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, even if, the allegations, contained in the FIR, are taken up, on their face-value, Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 3 no criminal offence, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, is constituted, against the petitioners. He further submitted that, the FIR, was got registered, by respondent No. 2, as a counter-blast, to Complaint No. 09 of 19.04.06, in which, she was summoned, for the offences, punishable under Sections 452, 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, vide order dated 09.07.07, and, Complaint No. 06 of 09.03.06, in which, she alongwith others, was summoned, for the offences, punishable under Sections 494 and 120-B IPC, vide order dated 29.04.08. He further submitted that, both these complaints, were filed by Balwant Singh, petitioner No. 1, father-in- law of the complainant, against her and others. He further submitted that neither any articles of dowry, were entrusted, to the petitioners, nor the question of misappropriation of the same, did ever arise. He further submitted that, there is no allegation, against the petitioners, in the entire FIR, that they treated respondent No. 2 with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that, petitioners No. 3 to 5, who are the brothers-in-law of respondent No. 2, had nothing to do with the dowry articles, and, they have been falsely implicated. He further submitted that, the FIR, is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. He also placed reliance, on Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala & another, 2009(4), RCR (Criminal), 680 (SC), M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4), RCR (Criminal), 761 (SC), and, Neelu Chopra & another Vs. Bharti, 2010(1), RCR (Criminal), 115 (SC), Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 4 in support of his contentions. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No. 1 – State, submitted that, the allegations, contained in the FIR, clearly constitute the offences, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. He further submitted that, the plea of defence of the accused, cannot be taken into consideration, at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that continuation of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, would not amount to abuse of the process of Court. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be partly accepted, qua petitioners No. 3 to 5, the brothers-in-law of respondent No. 2, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. No specific allegation, with regard to the entrustment of dowry and misappropriation thereof, was made, against Nachhatar Singh, Pavitar Singh @ Mikka and Jatinder Singh, brothers-in-law of respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, if any dowry, was given, to respondent No. 2, at the time of marriage, when she was living, in the house of her in-laws i.e. with her father-in-law and mother-in-law, they could only be said to be the custodian of the same, as the husband of respondent No. 2, died, as stated above. Nachhatar Singh, Pavitar Singh @ Mikka and Jatinder Singh, were neither entrusted dowry, nor they forcibly retained the same. It is a matter of common knowledge, that when the bride, is aggrieved, against the members of her in-laws family, she is always out and out, Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 5 to involve, as many members of the said family, as she could, so as to take revenge. The allegations, against petitioners No. 3 to 5, being general and vague, no offence, punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, is constituted, against them. The FIR and the subsequent proceedings, qua them, are liable to be quashed. 8. Now coming to the role of Balwant Singh and Ram Murti @ Murti Devi, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No. 2, it may be stated here, that respondent No. 2, was residing with them, as her husband, was serving, in the army. He died, while serving, in the army. The dowry articles, which were entrusted to respondent No. 2, were, thus, in the house, occupied by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2. When she was turned out of her bridal house, those articles of dowry, were illegally retained by petitioners No. 1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. They could be said to be the custodian of the same. When those articles of dowry, were not given back, on demand, then left with no alternative, respondent No. 2, was forced, to get the FIR registered. However, there is no allegation, in the FIR, to the effect, that petitioners No. 1 and 2, ever tortured respondent No. 2, in connection with the demand of more dowry. No offence, under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, is, made out, from the allegations, contained in the FIR. The facts of the cases, relied upon, by the Counsel for the petitioners, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the present case, in so far as petitioners No. 1 and 2, are concerned. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for Criminal Misc. No. M-31549 of 2008 6 petitioners No. 1 and 2 therefrom. The FIR and the subsequent proceedings, qua petitioners No. 1 and 2, in so far as the offence, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is concerned, is liable to be dismissed, but, it is liable to be accepted, so far as the offence, punishable, under Section 498-A IPC, is concerned. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the petition, is partly accepted, in the manner that, FIR No. 122, dated 08.07.08, under Sections 498-A and 120 IPC, P.S. City Sunam, District Sangrur, is quashed, qua petitioners No. 1 and 2, whereas, the petition, qua them, for the offence, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is dismissed. 10. The petition, qua Nachhatar Singh, Pavitar Singh @ Mikka and Jatinder Singh,petitioners No. 3 to 5, is accepted. FIR No. 122, dated 08.07.08, under Sections 406, 498-A and 120 IPC, P.S. City Sunam, District Sangrur, and subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, are quashed. 11. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 12. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned immediately. 03.08.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE