Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.08.2010 Chhaju Ram etc. ....Petitioners Versus Geeta Devi ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.98 of 20.04.2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the summoning Order dated 08.06.2007 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. The present petition qua petitioners No.1 and 2, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the complainant, was dismissed on the ground that no case for quashing of the complaint on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2 was made. Accordingly, the present petition presently survives only qua petitioners No.3 to 9. Petitioners No.3 and 5 are their sons i.e. brothers-in-law of the complainant, whereas, petitioners No.4 and 6 are wives of petitioners No.3 and 5 (sister-in-law of the complainant); petitioners No.7 and 8 are married Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 2 sisters of husband of complainant and petitioner No.9 is son of petitioner No.8 i.e. son of sister of complainant's husband. It was also stated that the petitioner No.9 is aged about 21 years and accordingly, marriage of his mother i.e. petitioner No.8 had taken place more than two decades ago and marriage of petitioner No.7 had also take place more than 15 years ago, whereas, marriage of the complainant took place in the year 2000 and petitioners No.3 to 6 are also residing separately from the complainant and her husband. As per the averments in the petition, which are not rebutted, the respondent/complainant is a handicapped and is having 50% disability, whereas, Rajender husband of the respondent/complainant is also handicapped and is having 80% disability of legs. Therefore, as both were handicapped, they were got married on 22.11.2000 in a simple ceremony. No dowry articles were exchanged between the parties as Rajender, husband of the respondent/complainant was also handicapped of having 80% disability. Petitioner No.1 purchased a plot of 200 yards in Palwal in favour of his son Rajender and his daughter-in-law i.e. the respondent- complainant Geeta and sale deed was got executed in favour of Rajender and Geeta on 04.09.2003. Inspite of the execution of sale deed in favour of respondent-complainant, half of the plot, she was not satisfied. She again started harassing her husband and the petitioner to get the sale deed of remaining half share of the plot executed in her favour. Due to mental harassment, the petitioners No.1 and 2 separated their son Rajender and their daughter-in-law Geeta from themselves and they started living in Palwal. Thereafter, in order to maintain peace in the house, Rajender husband of the respondent transferred his share in the plot in favour of respondent-complainant by way of registered sale deed dated 24.11.2005. The respondent was not satisfied even after having the full plot and her greed and demands were increasing day by day. Thereafter, the Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 3 respondent started pressurizing her husband Rajender to get share in the ancestral property but her husband refused to do so. When Rajender, husband of the respondent failed to meet her unlawful and illegal demands, she lodged a false and frivolous FIR No.44 dated 02.02.2006 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The same was thoroughly investigated by the police and the police came to the conclusion that the allegations of demand of dowry are false. After the thorough investigation of the FIR by the police, the same was cancelled and the cancellation report was submitted in the Court. The directions were issued by this Court vide Order dated 26.05.2008 to file reply. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned number of times. However, no reply was filed. Last opportunity to file reply was also given. On 23.07.2009, a statement was made before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that no reply is to be filed on behalf of the respondent. Thus, it is not disputed that petitioner No.1 i.e. the father-in-law bought a plot of 200 yards in Palwal in favour of his son Rajender and his daughter-in-law i.e. the present complainant. It is also not disputed that the husband of the respondent transferred his share in the plot in favour of respondent-complainant by way of registered sale deed dated 24.11.2005. It is also not disputed that the allegations as made in the FIR were found to be false and the FIR was cancelled and the cancellation report was submitted before the Court. Even otherwise, the allegations in the complaint against petitioners No.3 to 9 are not specific. The allegations of cruelty are more or less only against the husband. The petitioners, herein, are referred to as `All' in the petition which is a vague term. This Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 4 Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, while relying on the judgement 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 judgement rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case (supra) relied by Mr. Saini, this Court while relying upon a judgement 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 5 (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 vendettaor 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 generalised statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 6 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 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.” Besides the above, it is also not disputed that the petitioners No.3 and 5 are already married brother-in-law (jeth) of the respondent and petitioners No.4 and 6 are their wives, respectively. Petitioners no.7 and 8 are already married sister-in-laws of the respondent and petitioner No.9 is son of petitioner No.8. Petitioners no.3 to 9 are living separately from the respondent much earlier before her marriage with Rajender. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioners or any specific allegations of any demand of dowry has been levelled against them. They are being falsely implicated in the present case only being the relatives of husband of the respondent, whereas, they are residing separately from the respondent- complainant. Even in the complaint, the respondent had stated that petitioners No.5 and 6 are living in Palwal. 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. The present FIR in the facts of the present case is a sheer misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition only qua petitioners No.3 to 9 is allowed. Accordingly, Criminal Complaint No.98 of 20.04.2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the summoning Crl. Misc. No.M-48617 of 2007 7 Order dated 08.06.2007, as well as, subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioners No.3 to 9 are, hereby, quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 18.08.2010 JUDGE gurpreet