Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 Decided on 12.12.2011. Davinder Kaur and another ...... Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab .. .... Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. Challenge in this petition is the quashing of FIR No.74 dated 2.6.2009 under Sections 306 and 304-B of the Indianj Penal Code (Ananexure P-1) registered at Police Station Division No.1 District Jalandhar and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom Briefly stated FIR No.74 dated 2.6.2009 Police Station Division No.1 Jalandhar under Sections 306 IPC has been registered against the present petitioners along with Johandeep Singh, Sapanjot Singh, Avtar Kaur and Satpal Singh. The allegations made in the FIR are that the complainant was married in 1985 and was having three girls. His eldest daughter is Arvinder Kaur and two daughters are younger to her. Arvinder Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 2 Kaur had passed 10+2 and her marriage was solemnized on 14.10.2007 at Adarsh Palace, near Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar with one Johandeep Singh as per Hindu rites. On the marriage, they had given dowry to her in- laws family as per their status. After a short period, his son-in-law Johandeep Singh, along with all other family members used to torture his daughter and had been demanding more dowry. On 16.08.2008, Johandeep Singh his son-in-law had left his daughter at his house at Jalandhar. He had many telephone calls to him but to no effect. On 30.11.2008, he had left his daughter at Ludhiana and they were saying that they do not know to deal with them as we did not help them financially. Thereafter again, on 26.03.2009 Johandeep Singh left his daughter at his house at Jalandhar. After 1½ months, Arvinder Kaur again talked with Johandeep Singh on telephone and in response he replied that he is not to keep her and in case she comes at Ludhiana then they would not meet her as he has to start new work and to come after arranging the money for the same. The complainant being a poor Home Guard could not fulfill their demands. On 01.06.2009, at his residential house at about 8.30 P.M. Arvinder Kaur daughter of the complainant due to torture by all the above persons committed suicide by hanging herself with the fan pipe with the help of 'chuni' and she died at the spot. One suicide note written by her has been handed over to the police. 3. Accused Johandeep Singh, Sapanjot Singh, Avtar Kaur and Satpal Singh were put to trial in the said FIR whereas the present petitioners Davinder Kaur @ Seema and Sukhpritam Kaur @ Meenu were declared proclaimed offender. The material witnesses Jasbir Singh (PW-2), Kamaljit Kaur (PW-3) and Amarpreet Singh (PW-4) have not supported the case of Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 3 the prosecution and turned hostile and consequently vide judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by Shri K.C.Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar acquitted accused Johandeep Singh, Sapanjot Singh, Avtar Kaur and Satpal Singh for want of any evidence against them. Both the petitioners are the married sisters-in-law of deceased. Statements of Jasbir Singh (PW-2), Kamaljit Kaur (PW-3) and Amarpreet Singh (PW-4) have been placed on the file as Annexures P-3 to P-5 and all these material witnesses have stated that Arvinder Kaur deceased was not subjected to cruelty of bringing the less dowry on behalf of any of the accused but she was depressed on account of the fact that she could not conceive a child. Jasbir Singh complainant has also been arrayed as respondent in the present case. Except the testimony of Jasbir Singh (PW-2), Kamaljit Kaur (PW-3) and Amarpreet Singh (PW-4), there is no other evidence which could advance the case of the prosecution against the present petitioners. Jasbir Singh has filed reply in the form of affidavit that Arvinder Kaur was mentally upset as she was not able to conceive the child and on account of that fact she committed suicide and none of the accused including the present petitioners is at fault in respect of death of Arvinder Kaur. The main accused in the FIR were the husband and parents in law. The present petitioners are named separately. 4. Although the present petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders but the Division Bench of this Court in authority Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab reported in 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 453 held that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court in case the accused are put to trial having no chance of conviction. The Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 4 relevant observations made in the said ruling in paragraph Nos.22 to 24 are reproduced as under :- 22. While disposing of these two appeals, we are very much concerned about the absconding village rustic accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal, who had successfully evaded the dragnet of the police. The Investigating agency has put up a case implanting eye witnesses as against all the accused. Both the eye witnesses projected by the prosecution had not passed the test of trustworthiness. Their own showing would go to establish without any pale of doubt that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. The other materials produced by the prosecution also did not advance the case of the prosecution any further. The above facts and circumstances have persuaded us to come to a definite conclusion that the accused in this case were not the perpetrators of crime of murder as alleged by the prosecution. The same set of materials would be produced before the Sessions Court on production of the remaining three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal. After all the poor innocent labourers had migrated to other places to make out their livelihood. The appellants herein had in fact suffered imprisonment for such a long time leaving behind their kith and kin, who might have been in dire need of financial support and help from them. Such an unpleasant situation shall not be created for the other three accused against Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 5 whom also there is no material on record to fasten them with the charge of murder. We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succour to those faceless and voiceless accused who had taken to heals and hidden themselves apprehending the wrath of criminal proceedings for the heinous crime of murder. We are convinced that our judicial arm is not so crippled as to betray the vague hope of the hopeless. 23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- “Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 24. The above provisions recognize the inherent powers of the Court to do real and substantial justice, Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 6 preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. The statutory recognition of the inherent jurisdiction of the criminal Court indicates that there is a power for the criminal Courts to make such an order as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. We are conscious of the fact that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional cases where abuse of the process of the Court would result in serious miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. But at any rate the settled position is that this Court has the jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court in order to secure the ends of justice. In our considered view the same inherent powers can be exercised when this Court finds that the innocent accused, who had absconded would simply face the empty formality of trial with the very same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. Bringing the absconding accused to face the trial in this case in the above facts and circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. To secure the ends of justice, we hereby quash the entire proceedings as against the absconding accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Bathinda/Sessions Judge, Bathinda, as no useful purpose will be served even if they are Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 7 procured and ordered to face the trial in this case. 5. The facts of the present case are similar to the said case. The complainant as well as all material witnesses have categorically stated in the Court in a trial against other four co-accused that Arvinder Kaur has committed suicide due to the fact that she could not conceive and none of the accused i.e., including the petitioners are at fault. That order of acquittal has become final. This fact has not been disputed during the course of arguments by the learned State counsel. The complainant in the present case has filed reply reiterating the same stand that Arvinder Kaur committed suicide as she could not conceive and the petitioners are not at fault. 6. The petitioners are married sisters-in-law and were living separately. So, it would be clearly an abuse of the process of the Court to put them to trial although the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offender and normally the Court should not come to the rescue of the persons who has been declared proclaimed offender but if the Court comes to the conclusion that by putting the proclaimed offenders to trial would be an exercise in futility and cannot be convicted. 7. So, in these circumstances, keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandala's case (supra), the FIR No.74 dated 2.6.2009 under Sections 306 of the IPC registered at Police Station Division No.1 Jalandhar stands quashed and further proceedings qua the petitioners also stand quashed. Criminal Misc. No.M.36007 of 2009 8 8. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. December 12, 2011 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE