Bimla Devi vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

J. S. Sekhon, J.

Smt. Bimla Devi, motherinlaw and Samuel, fatherinlaw of Mst. Shamma Devi, complainant, through this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seek quashment of the complaint for offences under Sections 405, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summoning order Annexure P2 of the Judicial Magistrate whereby the accused were summoned for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code only inter alia, on the ground of vagueness of the allegations against them.

The brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the complainant Annexure P1 is that the marriage of Mst. Shamma Devi, complainant, was solemnised with Suresh Kumar on November 5, 1986, at Chandigarh according to Christian religious rites and ceremonies. The parents of the complainant entrusted dowry articles, detailed in Annexure A appended with the complaint, to all the four accused including the present petitioners, husband and brotherin law of the complainant. The husband and inlaws of the complaint being not satisfied with the dowry started maltreating her from the very day of the marriage. The complainant gave birth to a son named, Robin, on September 15, 1987. All the accused started torturing and pressuring the complainant to fetch Rs. 10,000/ from her parents but she expressed her inability to do so due to the poverty of her parents. Ultimately, she was turned out from the matrimonial home on March 20, 1987, and since then she is residing with her parents at Chandigarh. The present petitioners and their coaccused have failed to return the dowry articles despite repeated demands and service of legal notice dated July 1, 1989, under registered cover which was returned with the report of refusal. Under these circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint on August 16, 1989. The trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant as well as Mohinder Kumar (PW 2) summoned the husband and parentsinlaw, that is, the present petitioners to face trial for the above referred offence but did not summon Anil Kumar, younger brother of the husband.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

In view of the factum that the present petitioners happen to be parentsinlaw of the complainant and have not even averred in this petition that they had not attended the marriage of their son Suresh Kumar, there is no escape but to conclude that the articles of dowry mentioned in Annexure A appended with the complaint Annexure P1 were handed over to the present petitioners as it is usual to entrust these articles to the parents of the bridegroom on the occasion of the marriage. Thus it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the case of the present petitioners is comparable with that of Anil Kumar, their son.

No doubt the perusal of Annexure A reveals that it is silent as to which articles were given as gifts to the motherinlaw, fatherinlaw or other relations of the husband of the complainant yet all the same most of these articles do form the property of the complainant as these were given for her house in her matrimonial home by her parents or other relations. Consequently, I fail to find any force in the contention of, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations regarding entrustment of gifted articles are vague.

There is also no force in the contention of the learned, counsel for the petitioners that the parentsinlaw of the complainant being residing separately from Suresh Kumar, husband of the complaint have nothing to do with the misappropriation of these articles as the allegations in the complaint are very specific and the petitioners had yet to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant or if need be lead evidence in defence in order to establish their version.

Simply because Gulzar Masih father of the complainant had written letter Annexure P3 dated February 4, 1987 to Samuel, petitioner No. 2 conveying that he will take along Mst. Shamma complainant, on February 7, 1987 as at present he is facing some domestic problem cannot be inferred that the complainant was nicely treated at her matrimonial home much less that she was not turned out by the petitioners from her matrimonial home on March 20, 1987 because the averments of the complaint do reveal that she was pregnant at that time and her husband and parentsinlaw were demanding Rs. 10,000/ in cash from her parents. Under these circumstances the father of the complainant might have written in the letter Annexure P2 that be will be unable to come prior to 721987 due to some problem in the family. Simply because the complainant had not averred the present facts in the application filed by her under Sections 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against her husband, it cannot be said that the present allegations were fabricated later on or are afterthought as these allegations were not required to be mentioned in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the essential ingredients of awarding maintenance allowance in that provision are refusal or neglect of the husband to maintain his wife. Moreover, the trial Court after recording evidence in the presence of the accusedpetitioners shall go into the merits of these allegations for the purpose of framing the charge.

Consequently, for the reasons recorded above there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.