Anokh Singh and Others vs Paramjit Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint filed by Paramjit Kaur against the present petitioners under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. and other consequent proceedings taken thereunder including the summoning order.

According to the allegations in the complaint Anokh Singh petitioner is the father-in-law, whereas, Kuldip Kaur and Surjit Kaur accused-petitioners are the husband''s sisters of the complainant Paramjit Kaur. According to the complainant, the articles of dowry were handed over to the accused as well as to Kartar Singh complainant''s husband. The accused who were greedy persons were not satisfied with the quantum of dowry and consequently they taunted the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry. The complainant subsequently gave birth to a son. The husband of the complainant took her to Aurangabad and resided with Kuldip Kaur accused. During those days, Kartar Singh and Kuldip Kaur accused persistently demanded Rs. 5000/- by way of CHHUCHHAK. Thereafter she was brought to Kotkapura where Anokh Singh accused and Surjit Singh tormented her and demanded Rs. 5000/-. She could not bring the same and was denied food and water and in addition she was turned out of the house, after she was given beating.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The apex Court in case State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan and Others, , held that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute, or, spell-out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not.

Perusal of the complaint filed by Paramjit Kaur clearly shows that there are no specific allegations that any particular article of dowry was entrusted to any particular accused. The general and vague allegations made therein concerning entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused, including the petitioners, would not be sufficient for taking cognizance of offence punishable u/s 406 of the I.P.C. Nor general allegations that subsequently the complainant asked the father-in-law Anokh Singh, or other accused to return the articles of dowry would be sufficient to constitute an offence punishable u/s 406 of the I.P.C. I am supported in my view in case Dhan Devi v. Deepak 1989(1) R C R 278.

As far as the allegations concerning commission of offence u/s 498 I.P.C. are concerned, the same against the petitioners are quite vague. The allegations against Kuldip Kaur are that she and her brother Kartar Singh demanded Rs. 5000/- from the complainant at Aurangabad when the complainant and her husband went there after birth of their son. In view of the authority of Dhan Devi''s case (Supra) these allegations cannot be taken into consideration by the Court at Faridkot for taking cognizance of offence u/s 498A.I.P.C. against Kuldip Kaur petitioner. Besides, general allegations against Anokh Singh and Surjit Kaur accused that they too demanded amount of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant or acted with cruelty with her or tried to coerce her to bring money in the absence of specific details concerning date, time or the manner in which the respondent-wife was subjected to cruelty would not be sufficient to make out a prima facie case u/s 498 I.P.C. I find support on this point from Single Bench authority of this Court in case Kishan Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1989 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 13.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint filed by Paramjit Kaur against the present petitioners, namely Anokh Singh, Kuldip Kaur and Surjit Kaur and consequent proceedings taken thereunder by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, are directed to be quashed. However, there will be no legal bar for the trial Court to take action against Kartar Singh. accused. Nor the observations made for the purpose of disposal of this petition shall in any manner affect the decision of the main case on merits.