CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Ritu Aggarwal alias Pinky ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Malik, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 197 dated 14.12.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurgaon. Facts as narrated in the petition as well as by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the present petitioner has two brother. The parents of the petitioner solemnized the marriage of petitioner's one brother, namely Pankaj with Vandana in the year 2001. Pankaj and Vandana CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 2 have a son named Kshitij, who is now about 6 years of age. Pankaj, who was working with IBM initially settled in Vasant Kunj Delhi by taking apartment on rent. However, he later on shifted to Gurgaon along with his family by taking apartment No. 104/14, Silver Oaks, Gurgaon on rent. In December, 2006, Pankaj shifted to Kolkata along with his family for the purposes of pursuing the course of Executive MBA with IIM, Kolkata for a one year course. For the said purpose, Pankaj started staying in PGPEX Hostel in Room No. G3 at IIMC Campus which is a family hostel. It was further stated that the other brother of the petitioner, namely, Prafful Aggarwal was working in IBM, Kolkata in the year 2003. Respondent No. 2, namely, Neelam was also working with IBM at Kolkata. Both Prafful and Neelam came in contact with each other while working in IBM, Kolkata and they came close to each other and they decided to get married. Initially, the parents of both the sides were not happy but subsequently, they agreed to the said marriage. It was further contended that the attitude of respondent no. 2 with Prafful Aggarwal and his family members became hostile on account of the instigation of her parents. It was further contended that respondent No. 2 used to frequently quarrel with Prafful on the instigation of her parents. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home on 26.11.2007 without informing Prafful or anyone else and went to the house of her parents at Sonepat. Prafful made several calls from his mobile on the mobile of respondent No.2. However, she did not answer the calls. When Prafful called up her parents' house then the father of respondent No. 2 informed Prafful that the mother of respondent No. 2 was CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 3 unwell and that respondent No. 2 would return to Gurgaon as soon as the condition of her mother improves. The said information so supplied by the father of respondent No. 2 was incorrect as Prafful later on learnt that respondent No. 2 had joined her job on the very next day i.e. on 27.11.2007 after leaving her matrimonial home, she started staying with her maternal aunt (Mausi) at Gurgaon. It was therefore, argued that marriage was simple. There was no demand of dowry by the family. The girl left the matrimonial home as her parents who were never happy with the marriage used to instigate her. It was further alleged that before lodging the present FIR, a complaint (P-7) was also filed by respondent No.2 at Sonepat. The petitioner was not named as accused in the said complaint. This shows that the present allegation against the petitioner are false. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, vehemently opposed the said petition and submitted that specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. The petitioner was regularly interfering in the matrimonial home of respondent No. 2. Only the persons who tortured respondent No. 2 have been named in the FIR. The Court cannot go into the truth or falsity of the allegations and that the Court has to assume that the contents of the FIR are correct. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. It would be relevant to note that along with the present petitioner, who is married sister in law of the complainant (husband's sister), CRM M No.35157 of 2009 was filed on behalf of Vinod Kumar (father-in- law), Kusum Aggarwal (mother-in-law) and CRM M 10057 of 2009 was CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 4 filed on behalf of Pankaj Aggarwal (Jeth) and Vandana Aggarwal (Jathani). After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners withdrew CRM M 35157 of 2009 and CRM M 10057 of 2009. The case of the present petitioner stand on a different footing. The petitioner is a housewife and is residing with her husband Tej Parkash Aggarwal as he is serving as an I.E.S. Officer and has his current posting as Director in Research and Design and Standards Organization under Ministry of Railways at Lucknow. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Tej Parkash Aggarwal has been working as I.E.S. Officer and had different posting at different places in Jhabwa, Gorakhpur and Lucknow etc. The parents of the petitioner have three children i.e daughter Ritu (petitioner), two sons Pankaj and Prafful. Petitioner was married to Tej Parkash Aggarwal on 24.01.1998 and as such, the petitioner has been living in her matrimonial home along with her husband. She has been staying in Lucknow since the husband of petitioner was transferred to Lucknow in January 2007. No doubt that specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. However, at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that earlier complaint was filed by the complainant on 13.05.2008 (P-7). A perusal of the same shows that not even an iota of allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. The petitioner has not even been named in the said complaint. Reply has been filed by the respondent/complainant. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2/complainant (P7) on 13.05.2008 has not been denied. Thus, the allegation in the present FIR registered on 14.12.2008 is nothing but an after thought CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 5 especially when the petitioner is admittedly residing separately with her husband in a separate accommodation and there is no occasion for her to interfere in the day to day matrimonial life of the complainant. 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 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:- CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 6 “ 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 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 CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 7 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 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.” The present case is a classical example of such like cases where the petitioner who is married sister-in-law has been implicated. Admittedly, a complaint was filed on 13.05.2008 (P7) which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police Sonepat. The petitioner was not even named in the said complaint. No allegation was alleged against the present petitioner. Allegation in the present FIR therefore, appears to be an after thought. Moreover, she is admittedly residing separately in her matrimonial home. 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. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 197 dated 14.12.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurgaon and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed qua the present CRM No. M 10037 of 2009 8 petitioner. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 15.12.2010 mohan