Anguri Devi etc. vs State of Punjab etc.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 568 dated 05.11.2009 under Sections

406, 498A and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala and for staying the further proceedings of above said FIR

during the pendency of the present petition.

The Petitioner No. 1 is the widowed mother-in-law of the complainant and is residing with his son Mukhtiar Singh, Petitioner No. 3 at Village

Buddanpur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

However, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has very fairly withdrawn the petition qua Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, the present petition

survives only qua Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6.

Petitioner No. 2 is sister-in-law, Petitioner No. 3 is Jeth and Petitioner No. 4 is Jethani of Respondent No. 2, who are residing at House No.

42, Village Buddanpur, Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Patiala. Petitioner No. 5 is the Jeth and Petitioner No. 6 is the Jethani of Respondent

No. 2 and are residents of Ward No. 2, Mohalla Naugroup, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 got lodged an

FIR No. 568 dated 05.11.2009 under Sections 406, 498A and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, District Patiala against the present

Petitioners, as well as, her husband.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while praying for quashing of the FIR, stated that the Petitioners, who are residing separately, vague

allegations were levelled against them. It was further stated that the allegations levelled in the FIR regarding demand of car, dowry etc. are after

thought. Even the marriage was financed by Petitioner No. 5 as the Petitioner No. 5 deposited about Rs. 40,000/ - in the account of Virsa Singh

i.e. father of Respondent No. 2 as the marriage of Respondent No. 2 with Harbhajan Singh was a love-cum-arrange marriage and the Petitioner

No. 5 due to brotherhood, gave certain amount to the father of the girl.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the present Petitioners along with

mother-in-law and the husband tortured and harassed the complainant. The enquiry was held by the Prosecuting Agency and, accordingly, the

challan has also been filed against them. Therefore, there was no occasion to quash the FIR.

Learned Counsel for the parties were heard.

A perusal of the FIR shows that there are no specific allegations against Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6. In fact, the FIR specifically reads that"" all the

Petitioners along with the husband beaten me up collectively and they were taunting me on bringing lesser dowry."" All the Petitioners and other

accused family members are being referred to in the FIR as ""they"". Thus, no specific role or allegation is attributed to anyone of the Petitioners. The

allegations are vague and general. No particular cruelty is attributed to any Petitioner. Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Shakson

Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. reported as 2009(4) RCR 680, while determining the expression ""cruelty"" as envisaged u/s 498A IPC, held

as under:

xxxx

In order to understand the meaning of the expression ''cruelty'' as envisaged u/s 498A, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or

relatives of the husband of woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman.

22.When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the

FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation(a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on

the part of the Appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit

suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation(a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned

either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof no case is made out. Therefore, explanation(a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not

attracted in the present case.

We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of

the nature as mentioned in explanation(b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a

view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to

the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is

examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out

to attract a case of cruelty.

Applying the test in the present case, no act of the Petitioners can be said to be covered under the definition of cruelty defined u/s 498A IPC.

The allegation of misappropriation, if at all, are also vague. This Court, in the case of Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported as

2005(2) RCR 68, while quashing the FIR against the relatives for offences under Sections 406 and 498A in same and similar facts held in para 6

as under:

xxxx

Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz., Sections 498A, 406 of the

IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant''s husband who is undisputedly

living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time, i.e., between March and October, 1997, when the 6th Respondent

(informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her

with an offence u/s 498A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her sister-

in-law (Appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the

informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuse her

and used to pass remarks such as ""even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave."" It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make

wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not

amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At

the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against

her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against

her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband''s relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the

charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the Appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The

High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the Appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are

hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed.

In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioners are residing separately. As detailed above, they are the un-married sister-in-law, Jeth and

Jethani i.e. the brothers and brothers'' wives of the husband of the complainant.

This Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported as 2006 (4) RCR 322, while relying on the judgment

of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported as 2000 (2) RCR 695 held as under:

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 Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 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.

My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu. 2005

(2) R.C.R. 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.

Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (3) R.C.R 745 where issue of

striking down Section 498A 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 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.

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, the Petitioners are the relatives who are

admittedly residing separately. No specific allegation is alleged. The allegation, if at all, do not satisfy the definition of cruelty or misappropriation.

No offence u/s 406 or 498A is made out.

In the light of the law laid down as above, the present petition qua the Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 568 dated

05.11.2009 under Sections 406, 498A and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala are, hereby, quashed qua

Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 only.