Bhagwan Dass vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Bhagwan Dass (1), his fatherKasturi Lal (2), his mother Shanti (3) and his sisterSarswati (4) have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 143 dated 26.10.1993 of Police Station Bhatu Kalan under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 I.P.C., and the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad.

The First Information Report was registered on the basis of a complaint given by the secondrespondent Jagdish, who is the father of Sushila, the wife of the firstpetitioner Bhagwan Dass. The material allegations in the First Information Report (Annexure P1) are as follows :

The marriage of Sushila with Bhagwan Dass took place on 7.4.1982. The complainant and spent Rs. 1,50,000/ for the marriage. Golden jewellery weighing 25 tolas, domestic articles worth Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 30,000/ in cash were given as dowry, and were entrusted to the accused. As per custom Bhagwan Dass and Sushila were married while they were minors. Now they have become majors. The accused have to take Sushila with them, but, to harass the complainant they are demanding lakhs of rupees more as dowry. The accused are threatened that if the demand for dowry is not fulfilled, Sushila will not be allowed to live in their house and if she comes, she will be killed.

The petitioners have alleged in their petition as follows :

Bhagwan Dass and Sushila were married while they were minors and their marriage was performed along with the marriage of Chhabil Dass (elder brother of Bhagwan Dass) and the sister of Sushila and, therefore, no separate expenses were incurred for the marriage of Bhagwan Dass and Sushila. As per the custom, the articles are to be given to the girl at the time of Muklava ceremony. The firstpetitionerBhagwan Dass and his parents are living separately from each other. The fourthpetitionerSarswati is married and is a resident of Pili Mandori, the village of the complainant himself. The attempts made to bring Sushila in Muklava ceremony failed as Sushila refused to come with the firstpetitioner. Since Sushila refused to join the company of the firstpetitioner despite many efforts, the firstpetitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of desertion. Then the complainant filed an application before the police levelling false charges against the firstpetitioner. Now a false complaint has been lodged by the father of Shushila against the petitioners. After her marriage Sushila never came to reside in the house of the petitioners and, therefore, there is no question of any maltreatment and there is no such allegation in the First Information Report. There is also no specific allegation regarding the entrustment of particular article of dowry to any particular person. The allegations regarding entrustment are vague. No case is made out either under Section 498A or under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report has been filed as a counterblast to the petition for divorce.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, filed a reply on behalf of the State urging as follows :

The petition is bad for nonjoinder of Sushila and the complainantJagdish. At the time of marriage Sushila was aged about 7 years. It is wrong that the articles were to be given at the time of Muklava ceremony, but, were given at the time of the marriage. Although fourthpetitioner Sarswati resides in Pili Mandori, she often visits her parents'' house in village Dhand. Bhagwan Dass is residing with his parents. It is wrong that Sushila refused to go with the firstpetitioner, rather the petitioners insisted that they would take Sushila to their house only if their parents fulfilled their demands of 25 tola gold and cash as dowry. The entire articles of stridhan have not been returned to Sushila and they have been misappropriated by the accused/petitioners. The evidence collected during investigation prima facie discloses the commission of the offence; punishable under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. The dowry articles were entrusted to all the petitioners.

On the directions of the Court the Sub Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Bhatu Kalan filed an affidavit stating as follows, among other things stated in the reply of the Deputy Superintendent of Police mentioned above :

After investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, and the case was fixed for 7.12.1996 awaiting the orders of this Court. Sushila, after her marriage, never went to reside in the house of the petitioner, but, petitioner harassed Sushila by demanding dowry.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

Though the secondrespondentcomplainant was served, neither was he present nor was he represented by any counsel at the time of final arguments. Though Sushila was not made party to this petition, notice was sent to Sushila also since it was urged by the petitioners that subsequently the complainant Sushila and firstpetitioner have compromised the matter between themselves and even obtained a divorce by mutual consent. But despite service Sushila, the wife of the firstpetitioner also remained absent. The counsel for the petitioner has also produced the copy of the affidavit filed by Sushila before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad. The certified copy of the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, granting divorce to Bhagwan Dass and Sushila as also a copy of the statement of Sushila, Bhagwan Dass and Jagdish (in Hindi) filed before the Additional District Judge, Hissar, in the proceedings for divorce.

In her affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sushila has stated that no dowry was demanded by the petitioners. That she never made any complaint against the petitioners. That this case under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. pending before that Court was not lodged by her and that no statement of her was ever recorded by the police in this connection in the said case. She has also stated that she has sought a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Additional District Court, Hissar, that she never lived with Bhagwan Dass as wife at any time after marriage, that Bhagwan Dass had also filed a petition for divorce before the Additional District Judge, Hissar, and that the decree of divorce by mutual consent has also been passed. The certified copy of the order passed in petition No. 61 of 1993 decided on 3.12.1994 by Additional District Judge, Hissar, also shows that divorce petition was filed by Bhagwan Dass under Section 13 on the ground of cruelty and desertion, and that Bhagwan Dass and Sushila filed a joint petition also seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order also shows that the parties have compromised the matter and settled their claim of dowry etc. and that a decree of divorce has been granted to them by mutual consent.

Therefore, though the petitioners allege that a reading of the First Information Report does not disclose any ground for proceeding against them under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. and though, the chargesheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate on the basis of the F.I.R. in question, it is clear that Bhagwan Dass the firstpetitioner, his wifeSushila and the complainantJagdish have compromised the matter and the dispute regarding dowry has also been settled between them. As pointed out already in spite of notice neither the complainant nor Sushila have chosen to appear and oppose this application. Therefore, even though the chargesheet has been filed, it is clear that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue the complainant and Sushila will not support the case of the prosecution and it will be a mere exercise in futility. In view of the decision in Menakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) R.C.R. 123 , this Court can, when there are formidable compulsions quash the proceedings even though the chargesheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate Court. As no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings, the First Information Report in question and the consequential proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, have to be quashed, since the matter has been settled between the parties. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the other contentions raised by the parties.

In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the First Information Report in question and also the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad.