Crl. Misc. No. 24279--M of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 24279-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.8.2009 *** Narinder Kaur & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal complaint No. 9 of 2007, titled as Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. Harvinder Singh etc. and summoning order dated 9.1.2008 by dint of which the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 120-B IPC therein. The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with one Harvinder Singh, the brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 and son of petitioners No.3 and 4, on 10.8.1997. Out of this wedlock three children are born. In the year 2007 she filed the impugned complaint against her husband (since PO), and the present petitioners containing the allegations that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by her parents in the marriage and soon after the marriage they harassed and maltreated her and demanded more dowry from her. According to the complainant, she was turned out of the matrimonial home and the accused refused to keep her unless their demand. The dowry articles which were entrusted to the accused have also been misappropriated by them. In preliminary evidence the complainant got examined herself as CW.3 besides examining Om Parkash and Balwinder Singh as CW.1 and 2 respectively. The Court below, on the basis of preliminary evidence summoned all the accused including the petitioners, under Sections 406, Crl. Misc. No. 24279--M of 2008 498-A read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Dis-satisfied with the same the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, has requested for withdrawal of instant petition to the extent of petitioners No.3 and 4. Accordingly, the instant petition qua petitioners No.3 and 4 stands dismissed as withdrawn. It has been contended that the impugned complaint has been filed by respondent No.2, involving each and every members of the in-laws family. The petitioners are married sister and brother of husband and are living separately and have been arraigned by the complainant just to wreak her personal vengeance. It has further been contended that in whole of the complaint no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners No.1 and 2, except that they were entrusted with dowry articles at the time of marriage and the husband of the complainant treated her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry at the instigation of the petitioners. In the reply filed on behalf of the State as well as complainant, the quashing of the impugned complaint and the summoning order has been opposed and the summoning order passed against the petitioner has been justified. The paper-book has been carefully perused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), has 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 the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. Further, in the case of Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 313, when a first information report was lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire family members of the husband, this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR against the unmarried sisters and brothers, by observing that “it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband the wife become strained.” Similarly, in the case of Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 332, a criminal complaint was filed under Crl. Misc. No. 24279--M of 2008 Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the husband, his parents and 5 sisters and the proceedings qua sisters were quashed with the observation that the allegations against the sisters are vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. Similarly in the instant case, a perusal of impugned complaint reveals that the allegations therein against the petitioners No.1 and 2 are omnibus and have been levelled just to drag them in the criminal proceedings in relation to harassment on account of demand of dowry and misappropriation thereof. Petitioner No.1 is admittedly married sister-in-law of the complainant and there is no recital in the complaint of her having residing at her parental house, rather it has come on record that she is frequent visitor to abroad. Likewise, there is no serious dispute by the complainant in her reply filed to the assertion made in the petition as to the separate living of petitioner No.2 at a distant place with his family being engage in a vocation there. Thus, it cannot be expected that they,in any way either entrusted with the dowry articles, which they lateron allegedly misappropriated and refused to return the same to the complainant or they were beneficiary to the said demand of dowry. Further, the perusal of complaint reveals that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners No.1 and 2. The allegations, so far as petitioners No.1 and 2 are concerned, appears to have been made by the complainant just out of frustration since she failed to maintain her matrimonial ties, due to whatever reason and whosoever fault and had attempted to widen the net of penal laws. The vague allegations in the complaint against petitioners No.1 & 2 and insufficient grounds to summon them warrant the interference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against them with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned complaint, summoning order and subsequent proceedings thereto, to the extent of petitioners No.1 and 2, are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 18, 2009 Jiten