Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.04.2011 Madan Lal @ Dara and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009 Surjit Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.P. Singh Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Neelam, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 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 order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009 as the FIR in both the cases is same. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.264 dated 26.11.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur and also the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009, the petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2, whereas, in Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009, the petitioner No.1 is the maternal uncle and petitioner No.2 is the cousin of the husband of the complainant. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be allowed to withdraw the Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009, as also, Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 qua petitioner No.2 i.e. Satpal @ Sati. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn and Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 is withdrawn qua petitioner No.2. Thus, only Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 survives qua petitioner No.1, who is the maternal uncle. The petitioner No.1 is the distant relative of the husband of the complainant. He is the maternal uncle. From the perusal of the FIR, no allegation has been levelled against Madan Lal @ Dara i.e petitioner No.1 so as to constitute an offence under Sections 406/498-A/323 IPC against him. Besides the allegation of dowry, the other specific allegations are as under :- “ Today at around 7'o Clock in the morning, when I was present in my house, and also my husband, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law were also present at home. At that time, my uncle-in-law (mama) dara, and my husband's Aunt's son Satpal @ Satti, resident of Mehlanwali, came to our place. My mother-in-law told me to make tea. I said my health is not good. At this, my mother-in-law caught hold my hairs, then my sister-in-law Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 3 Veena and my husband's Aunt's son Satpal both caught hold of my hands and my husband Resham Singh gave me a punch blow on my nose and also caught my neck, then he also tried to stuff the cloth in my mouth. At this my nose started bleeding. They all told me that you have to say in the panchayat that I want divorce. I somehow escaped from them and reached my neighbour's house of Harbans Lal, from where, I informed my parents on phone.” A perusal of the above shows that there is no allegation qua the present petitioner. He was not even staying in the matrimonial house of the complainant and therefore, never interfered in the matrimonial life of the complainant. 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 4 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 5 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 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.” Thus, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner, on the basis of above allegations in the FIR, is nothing but a misuse of process of law. 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 light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Divya alias Babli and others (supra), the present petition qua petitioner No.1-Madan Lal @ Dara is allowed and FIR No.264 dated 26.11.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur and also the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby, quashed. Proceedings qua others shall continue. Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 6 However, the personal appearance of petitioner No.2-Satpal @ Sati in Crl. Misc. No.M-4223 of 2009 and the personal appearance of petitioners in Crl. Misc. No.M-13892 of 2009 shall remain exempted except as and when required by the trial Court. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 18.04.2011 JUDGE gurpreet