CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Kavita and others ........ Petitioners Versus Laxmi .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mani Ram Verma for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of summoning order dated 31.10.2006 (P1) passed by the learned JMIC, Bhiwani in Crl. Case No. 433 of 2005, vide the, petitioners have been summoned under Section 498-A, 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as quashing of criminal complaint No. 433 of 2005 titled as Laxmi v. Dilbagh etc. filed under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 409, 506, 341, 148, 148 IPC (P2). Criminal complaint No. 433 of 2005 was instituted on 19.01.2005 by the respondent under Section 498-A, 406, 420, 409, 506, 341, 148, 149 IPC against the seven persons i.e. husband, father-in-law, CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 2 mother-in-law, brother-in-law and present petitioners, who are the sister-in- law of the complainant. Brother-in-law - Sukhbir is stated to have died in an accident. The present petitioners are the sisters-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. The marriage between the respondent and brother of the petitioners was solemnized on 23.03.2001, whereas, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were admittedly married before the marriage of respondent/complainant with their brother. Petitioner No.3 got married subsequently. A perusal of the complaint shows that neither there is any specific entrustment to the petitioners nor is there any specific allegation against them. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are settled in their matrimonial homes and have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of their brother, whereas, petitioner No. 3 is stated to be young at the time of alleged allegation. The allegation are general and vague which read as under:- “Accused No. 2 to 7 have instigated accused No. 1 for demand of dowry and has been harassed and beaten for dowry.” The Single Bench of this Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 695 held as under:- “22. Another judgment rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case (supra) relied by Mr. Saini, this Court while relying upon a judgment of Apex Court rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their Lordships have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 3 the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. 23. My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68 in which their Lordships while quashing the proceeding against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in as many relations of the husband. 24. Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the “action” and not the “section” may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing with the dowry menace, however, observed in para 17 as under:- “ The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomny (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 4 vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no CRM No. M 36344 of 2009 5 direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” Lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. In the present case also, all the family members have been enroped. No date and time is given to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. The allegations of articles against the present petitioners are general and vague. They are the married sister-in-laws and are residing separately. In view of the above discussion, summoning order dated 31.10.2006 (P1) passed by the learned JMIC, Bhiwani in Crl. Case No. 433 of 2005 as well as criminal complaint No. 433 of 2005 titled as Laxmi v. Dilbagh etc. filed under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 409, 506, 341, 148, 148 IPC (P2) and subsequently proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 06.05.2011 mohan