Adarsh and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

H. S. Brar, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing First Information Report No. 9 dated January 30, 1991, Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, under sections 406/498A, IPC.

Adumbrated in brief, the facts giving rise to the filing of this Criminal Miscellaneous is that Anupam Sharma, daughter of Dev Raj Sharma, resident of 941, Durgapuri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, was married to Ashutosh Sharma, son of R. C. Dutta, resident of 142, Sector 10, Panchkula District Ambala, according to Hindu rites at Ludhiana, on Nov. 23/24, 1986.

It is alleged in the First Information Report that the articles of dowry and stridhan for use and enjoyment of the wiferespondent No. 2 were entrusted to the following persons :

(i) Item Nos. I to 3 and 5 to 9 of Annexure `A'' were entrusted to Mrs Swaraksha Dutta w/o Sh. R. C. Dutta, jointly;

(ii) Cash of Rs. 61,000/ Rs. 21,000/ plus Rs. 20,000/ were entrusted to. R. C. Dutta, father of Ashutosh and Shashi Kant;

(iii) Attache containing 21 sarees of applicant of item No. 14 of Annexure A, was entrusted to Ravi Kant, Lalita Kapil w/o V.M. Kapil and Smt. Adarsh w/o Shashi Kant jointly;

(iv) One gold ring and out of item 3 of Annexure `A'' and Bank Draft of Rs. 10,000/ plus two Citizen wrist watches were entrusted to Ashutosh Sharma;

(v) Attache containing articles of item Nos. 12 and 15 of Annexure A was entrusted to Ravi Kant son of R.C. Dutta;

(iv) Articles of item Nos 10,13,14, 9 Sarees with Blouse and peticoat and item Nos 16 to 22 of Annexure `A'' were entrusted to Ravi Kant, Shashi Kant and Arvind sons of R C. Dutta who put them into iron box after tallying with the list handed over to R.C. Dutta and Mrs. Swaraksha Dutta by the parents of the applicant in the presence of relatives and gathering; and

(vii) Articles/gold ornaments as per Annexure `B'' given in `Wari'' by the parentsinlaw to the applicant which constitute her istridhan were also entrusted to Mr. R.C. Dutta, Smt. Swaraksha Dutta and Smt. Adarsh on their representation that the same would be placed in safe custody and would be delivered to the applicant as and when required for use and enjoyment of the applicant as her absolute property.

It is alleged in the petition that after living as husband and wife for about one month at Panchkula, Ashutosh Sharma who was stated to be employed at Zambia, went back to Zambia on December 16, 1986. It is mentioned in the petition that the parents of Ashutosh Sharma made a precondition that in case Anupam Sharma desired to visit Zambia she could only go if she brought Rs. 20,000/ from her parents. On this illegal demand having been accepted by the patents of applicant respondent No. 2, she was allowed to go to Zambia on March 18, 1987. The matter did not end there. In Zambia, the behaviour of Ashutosh Sharma remained rude, savage and cruel, at the instigation of Lalita Kapil, sister of Ashutosh, who was also living there. Then on February 23, 1988, Ashutosh along with the respondentwife came back to India and lived at Panchkula and Ludhiana up to April, 1988. At Ludhiana also, the husband maltreated his wife in the presence of her maternal uncle Promod Madhra and brother Manish. It is alleged that Ashutosh Sharma again demanded dowry articles from his parentsinlaw for taking Anupam Sharma along with him to Zambia. This time the parents of the applicant again obliged Ashutosh Sharma by providing one gold ring studded with yellow saphra of 16 Rattis worth Rs. 4,000/ and also some other articles, making it convenient for their daughter to live in Zambia with her husband peacefully. On that occasion, parents of Ashutosh Sharma too accompanied them to Zambia on April, 21, 1988. On account of this wedlock, Anupam Sharma gave birth to a female child but reduced her weight considerably due to their physical, mental and economical tortures.

On account of the differences the couple came back to India and started residing at Panchkula. At Panchkula too, the applicant was not spared but was subjected to treatment which is described by her as inhuman and most cruel.

When again Ashutosh Sharma wanted to go back to Zambia, he and his parents connived together for pressing hard on Anupam Sharma to bring another sum of Rs. 50,000/ if she was willing to accompany them to Zambia once again But, this time her parents showed their inability to meet the said huge and illegal demand. However, when the couple visited Ludhiana in the third week of August, 1989, parents of the respondent wife gave one VCR (No. G. 120 Model of National. make), clothes and some articles costing Rs. 5,000/. However, this did not satisfy, their lust and the husband and his parents threatened that the Passport and Air Ticket of the respondentwife will not be returned till all their demands were met fully. However, when Rs. 20,000/ were paid to the parents of Ashutosh Sharma, Anupam Sharma was again able to go back to Zambia. She again met the same fate there.

The respondentwife when returned to India, went to Ludhiana where she was forced to live after desertion by her husband and inlaws. The respondent wife demanded that all articles of dowry/stridhan entrusted to be aforementioned persons, be delivered back at Ludhiana. But, it is alleged that the said persons refused point black to do so. In view of these facts, Anupam Sharma has stated in the First Information Report that they have retained the dowry articles/stridhan illegally and have dishonestly misappropriated and converted the same to their own use and advantage.

It is alleged in the petition that the allegations contained in the First Information Report are absolutely false frivolous and baseless, as the entire family of Ashutosh Sharma has been roped in with a mischievous intention in order to browbeat and defame the petitioners and other members of the family. The persons named as accused in the First Information Report besides Ashutosh Sharma himself, include (i) R. C. Dutta (Father), (ii) Swaraksha Dutta (Mother), (iii) Ravi Kant (Brother), (iv) Shashi Kant (Brother); (v) Arvind (Brother); (vi) Lalita (sister); and (vii) Adarsh (wife of brother). It is, thus, alleged that both the parents, all the brothers, sister and even the wife of brother Shashi Kant have been named as accused in the First Information Report and the allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles and cruelty have been levelled against them, which besides being false are of vague and general nature.

Apart from the above, it is alleged that the Police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, will have no jurisdiction to investigate any such allegation as the crime, according to her, was committed as Panchkula (Ambala District) and in Zambia Africa).

Reply to the petition has been filed by Mukhtiar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, AntiFraud Staff Ludhiana, by way of affidavit, which is dated July 28, 1991, wherein most of the paras of the petition are denied as wrong. Another reply by way of Affidavit has also been filed by the said Assistant Sub Inspector, which is dated August 27, 1991, which in a nut shell says that the matter is still under investigation and, thus, the petition for quashing the First Information Report may be dismissed.

Reply in the shape of an affidavit has also been filed by Anupam Sharma, wherein the averments made in the petition have been denied and it is averred that the petition is totally without any merit and the same may, be dismissed with heavy costs.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

The learned counsel for, the petitioner states that the allegations of misappropriation of dowry articles/stridhan and cruelty, levelled against them are false, frivolous and are of vague and general nature, of which no cognizance can be taken. He points out that in the absence of any specific allegation regarding entrusment of any particular article of dowry to any particular petitioner, no offence is made out under sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, and they have been falsely implicated in order to harass and humiliate them on that score. He has further alleged that it is well known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relations of the husband as possible, in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage, more so when there are, remote chances of conviction. For these prepositions he has cited Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527 : 1988(2) PLR 28 Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana, 1989(2) Recent C. R. 73 ; Krishan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports, 183 ; Jasbir Kaur and another v. The State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 243 ; Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others. 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 566 (SC) : 1991 Cal. L. J. 3086 and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angra and others etc., 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 565 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 709 .

On the other leg of his arguments, he states that when the allegations made in the First Information Report are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can even reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused continuance of the proceedings will be a nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. In order to support his arguments, he relies on the observations in Devendra Dutt and others v. State (Delhi) and others, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 50.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the brothers or the sisters and in any case the brother''s wife of the bridegroom are not supposed to accept the dowry articles or stridhan in the presence of the parents of the bridegroom. To support his argument, he has cited Pawan Kumar and others v. State of Punjab, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 81 ; Dr. Ashwani Kumar Juneja and others v. Aruna Kumari, 1991(3) Recent CR 95 and Surinder Katir v. State of Haryana, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 112.

On the point of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana will have no jurisdiction to investigate any allegation, as the crime, according to the wife, was committed at Panchkula (District Ambala) and in Zambia (Africa). To substantiate his argument, he relies on the observation in Shori Lal and others v. Smt. Nisha and another, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Report 276.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent. No. 2wife has argued that the petitioners have been rightly implicated, as they along with other accused had received the stridhan and dowry articles and misappropriated the same and converted to their own use and enjoyment. He says that in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners, the First Information Report is not liable to be quashed at this stage In this connection, he relies on the observations in Smt. Nirmal Bhasin and others v. Smt. Alka Bhasin, 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 83 (P&H) : 1989 Marriage Law Journal 571 ; Criminal Revision No 191 of 1990 (Rakesh Kumar and others v. The State of Punjab and another decided on March 11, 1990); Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 1146; Kurukshetra University and another v. State Haryana and another; AIR 1977 SC 2229 and State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors., JT 1990(4) 650.

In the same context, the learned counsel has also cited Smt. Basant Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Report 204 and Rajesh Kumar and others v. The State of Punjab and another, 1 91 Marriage Law Journal 37, in order to contend that the police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana has jurisdiction to investigate the crime.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I need not go into the question of jurisdiction. as the petition is likely to succeed on other grounds. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, more so when the consistent view of this Court seems to be that when there is no specific allegation regarding the entrustment of any particular article of dowry/stridhan to any particular person, then that person cannot be convicted for an offence, under sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Observations in Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527: 1988(2) PLR 28, Suresh Kumar and ors. v. State of Haryana, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Report 73 and Krishan Lal and others. v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Report 1983, may be referred to with advantage.

In the case in hand, it has not been specifically mentioned in the First Information Report as to which particular article of dowry was handed over to which particular petitioner. All that is mentioned qua the petitioners is as under :

"Articles of item Nos. 10, 13,1 4, 9 Sarees with Blouse and peticoat and item Nos. 16 to 22 of Annexure `A'' were entrusted to Ravi Kant, Shashi Kant and Arvind sons of K. C. Dutta who put them into iron box after tallying with the list handed over to R. C. Dutta and Mrs Swaraksha Dutta by the parents of the applicant in the presence of relatives and gathering."

It is nowhere mentioned that any particular article was handed over to Arvind Kumar petitioner. Regarding Lalita Kapil, is mentioned as follows :

"Attache containing 21 Sarees of applicant of item No. 14 of Annexure A, was entrusted to Ravi Kant, Lalita Kapil w/o V. M. Kapil and Smt. Adarsh w/o Shashi Kant jointly "

Here also, it is not mentioned as to which particular article of dowry was entrusted to Lalita Kapil.

As is evident from the above, similar are the averments in regard to petitioner Adarsh, who happens to be the wife of the brother of the husband, The other averments against this petitioner are mentioned below

"Articles/gold ornaments as per Annexure `B'' given in `Wari'' by the parents inlaw to the applicant which constitute her istridhan were also entrusted to Mr. R. C. Dutta Smt. Swaraksha Dutta and Smt. Adarsh on their representation that same would be placed in safe custody and would be delivered to the applicant as and when required for use and enjoyment of the applicant as her absolute property."

From this part of the averments, it is not discernible as to which particular article of dowry was handed over to Smt. Adarsh petitioner.

A bare reading of all this material would apparently show that only vague allegations of entrustment of dowry articles have been made and no specific act of cruelty is attributed to the three petitioners in the FIR and, thus, no offence is made out against them.

Further, it has been held by this Court that the brothers or the sisters or other distant relations of the husband are not supposed to accept the stridhan or dowry articles in the presence of the parents of the bridegroom in this connection, see Pawan Kumar''s Swaran Singh''s Dr. Ashwani Kumar Juneja''s and Surinder Kaur''s cases (supra). In the present case. the bridegroom as well as his parents were present at all the relevant times when the dowry articles were entrusted to them and it so seems that the names of the petitioners have been mentioned only to show them as one of the recipients of the stridhan along with the parents of the bridegroom.

I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners when he says that it is wWell known that an estratged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relations of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage and that there is no rule of thumb that whatever has been stated in the First Information Report has to be accepted as gospel truth even if it is altogether unacceptable to common sense, and it has been so held in Jasbir Kaur''s case (supra).

In view of these circumstances, when no specific allegation regard ins entrustment of it particular article of dowry to any one of the petitioners is made in the First Information Report and especially when the husband and his parents were present at the time of entrustment of the dowry articles and in view of the final averments, whatever made in the First Information Report against the petitioners, nothing else remains to be investigated and there are oblique chances of conviction of the petitioners on the basis of the allegations made in the First Information Report, when even those allegations against the petitioners appear to have been made with an oblique motive of pressurizing the husband and his parents and when even the wife of the brother of the husband has not been spared of the vague allegations of entrustment of dowry articles, which allegation is rather highly improbable and unheard of continuance of proceedings against the petitioners will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the ends of justice require that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. In such a situation, it does not appear expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue, because a Court cannot be utilised for an oblique purpose.

As a result of my above discussion, this petition succeeds. The First Information Report and consequent proceedings qua the petitioners only are quashed.