Bhagwan Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and Sukhdev Kaur

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On the basis of a complaint submitted by Sukhdev Kaur wife of Harjit Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police Ludhiana, case FIR No. 11 dated 611990 was registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana against the petitioners for offences under sections 406/498A of Indian Penal Code, As per allegations made in the FIR (Annexure P1/T) Sukhdev Kaur was married to Harjit Singh on 14.1.86 at village Jangpur, tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana according to Anand Karaj ceremonies A child named Harmanprit Kaur was born out of this wedlock on 14101987. At the time of marriage parents of Sukhdev Kaur spent about 1,00,000/ and gave articles mentioned in Ann A to Sukhdev to be used by her after her marriage. As Sukhdev Kaur was in her bridal dress the articles were entrusted to Harjit Singh husband, Bhagwan Singh, Gurnam Kaur motherinlaw Baljit Singh sister''s husband of Harjit Singh and Manjit Singh and Charanjit Singh brothers of Harjit Singh and her parents also gave some articles to Sukhdev Kaur for her use as per AnnexureB which were to constitute Stridhan of Sukhdev Kaur. The husband and other relatives mentioned in the complaint were not satisfied with the dowry and they pressed for an amount of Rs. 60,000/ in cash and a scooter. As their demand was not fulfilled, Sukhdev Kaur was subjected to cruelty. The aforesaid demands were reiterated again and again, so parents of Sukhdev Kaur gave further substantial customary presents at the birth of the child. On midnight of 26/27111988 Sukhdev Kaur was mercilessly beaten at the instance of Gurnam Kaur and wasturned out of the house just in three clothes. The accused misappropriated the articles given in dowry and committed breach of trust. They refused to return the articles to Sukhdev Kaur. In fact they had hatched a conspiracy for making unlawful gain and to cause unlawful loss to the complainant.

For quashing this FIR, Bhagwan Singh, fatherinlaw, Manjit Singh brotherinlaw and Baljit Singh soninlaw of Bhagwan Singh filed Criminal Misc. No. 12427M of 1990 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and same relief was sought by Harjit Singh husband, Gurnam Kaur motherinlaw and Charanjit Singh brotherinlaw of Sukhdev Kaur who filed Criminal Misc. No. 14544M of 1990. As common question of law is involved in these two petitions, so the same shall be disposed of by this judgment.

It was contended by Bhagwan Singh etc. that they were living separately from Harjit Singh husband of the complainant, Bhagwan Singh took a separate residence in September, 1988 simply because Harjit Singh and Sukhdev Kaur were having strained relations. Manjit Singh was a Civil Engineering student of Government Polytechnic, Kashipur and resided in a hostel while Baljit Singh lived in Maihaula where he was running agency of fertilizers. It was further contended that the offence, if any had been committed at Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) where Sukhdev Kaur and Harjit Singh resided. There were no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to any of the petitioners and relatives of Harjit Singh had been involved for just causing harassment which amounted to abuse of process of the Court. No list of articles given in dowry was prepared at the time of marriage nor such list was signed by Harjit Singh.

In the other petition, Harjit Singh husband of Sukhdev Kaur alleged that he refused to concede to the demand of Sukhdev Kaur to live in the house of his inlaws at which Sukhdev Kaur started creating trouble and went to her parents house. She lodged the first information report simply to harass him and his other relatives. His brother Charanjit Singh was a doctor and a lecturer in K.G. Medical College, Lucknow, where he was living for the last 15 years.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the complainantwife that the allegations made in the first information report taken at face value clearly established a case against all the petitioners as the allegations were quite specific, clear and unambiguous. The articles of dowry were entrusted to all the petitioner which they refused to return to the complainant and dishonestly retained the same in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant. The ingredients of the offence Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code were prima facie made out. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 Supreme Court 628 , wherein it was observed.

"Where the allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of stridhan properties was wade out by the married woman in her complaint and the allegations were clear, specific and unambiguous and all the facts stated in the complaint constitute the offence under Sections 405/406 the right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant. Since the complainant primafacie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in Sections 405/406, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under Section 482."

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the first information report did not disclose as to what particular articles of dowry were entrusted to which of the petitioner and were, thus, no specific allegations of entrustment. The allegations regarding cruel treatment meted out to, the complainant were also vague and ambiguous and it was not mentioned as to who were the petitioners who were not satisfied with the articles of dowry and harassed the complainant to bring more articles. It was also contended that as the complainant lived with Harjit Singh in Muzaffar Nagar (U. P.) so court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to hold trial.

In the case in hand the first information report had been lodged by Sukhdev Kaur herself she has made specific allegations that articles of dowry were entrusted to all the petitioners in village Jangpur where the marriage was performed. Subsequent customary gifts were also given by her father or at village Jangpur. In reply to the petitioner Sukhdev Kaur alleged that at the time of marriage a list of articles given in dowry was prepared which was duly signed by her as well as by Harjit Singh, her husband. At present the only question to be determined is whether the allegations made in the first information report make out a prima facie case for charging the petitioners 11 for offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC. There are specific allegations regarding entrustment and regarding retaining of Stridhan by the petitioners with malafide intention for making unlawful gain and causing unlawful loss to the complainant. The allegations regarding cruelty are also specific and it is maintioned that the complainant was subjected to such extreme cruelty that she started thinking of finishing her life by committing suicide. In the case of Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasana Kumar and others, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 173 it was held

"In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court."

In the instant case it does not appear that the complaint has been filed simply to harass the petitioners and is an abuse of process of the Court. The contention of the petitioners that they lived separately from Harjit Singh and Sukhdev Kaur will be looked into at appropriate stage.

The allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case against the petitioners and the truthfulness of the allegations made by the complaint will be gone into by the trial Court. Whatever defences may be available to the petitioners, they may prove the same at the time of trial. In these circumstances the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted.

During the course of arguments it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that exemption may be granted to the petitioners from appearance in Court during trial as they were residents of Uttar Pradesh. Father of Sukhdev Kaur complainant was an influential person and he had been threatening the petitioners that if they came to Ludhiana, to attend the hearing, they would be falsely implicated in a case under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act and will be taught a lesson. This allegation was also made in para No. 8 of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the circumstances of the case I issue a direction to the trial Court that the petitioners except Harjit Singh and Bhagwan Singh shall be exempted from personal appearance before it except on a date on which their personal appearance may be so required. With this direction, Criminal Misc. No. 12427M of 1990 and Criminal Misc. 14544M of 1990 are dismissed.

Misc. dismissed.