Bimla Rani vs Saroj alias Sakuntla

K.K. Srivastava, J.

The respondent Saroj alias Shakuntla was married with Ravinder Kumar, son of petitioner No. 1/Bimla Rani and brother of petitioner No. 2/Krishan Lal on 11.7.1993 at Jalalabad (West), district Ferozepur, according to Hindu religion and rites. The respondent/wife came to live with her husband Ravinder Kumar after her marriage, which was duly consummated. The respondent, however, was not properly kept at the matrimonial house and there was demand for more dowry despite the fact that the father of respondent had given considerable dowry in the marriage, as alleged in para 1 of the complaint, which reads, inter alia, as under :

"At the time of marriage, accused No. 1 came as a bridegroom whereas accused No. 2 to 4 came in the capacity of members of the marriage party. On 11.7.1993 at about 4.00 p.m., Hakam Chand, father of the complainant in the presence of Madan Lal and Beant Singh son of Gurpartap Singh gave fridge, cooler, tablefan, sewing machine, one suit case, 25 suits, one watch, 101 utensils, one big box, one double bed, one sofa set and jewellery of gold of 8 tolas and pajeb of silver in the shape of articles of dowry, which was Istridhan of the complainant. Accused No. 1 Ravinder Kumar was given gold chain weighing 2 tolas, 2 rings weighing one tola and one watch as an entrustment. Similarly accused No. 2 Bimla Rani who is mother of accused No. 1, was entrusted 4 gold bangles weighing 4 tolas, pair of gold ring weighing one tola, pajeb of silver weighing 10 tolas. Accused No. 3 Krishan Lal was entrusted with fridge, cooler, table fan, sewing machine, double bed, sofa set, one peti. Accused No. 4 was entrusted with one big attache case containing 25 suits of the complainant, 101 utensils. Besides this, number of other various items were given in dowry for the use of complainant which was taken into possession by the other baratis. The above mentioned items were given as an entrustment to the accused in the presence of the witnesses and said dowry items are Istridhan of the complainant and complainant is owner of these articles."

The demand raised by husband and his relatives, including the petitioners was for a cash amount of Rs. 25,000/ or in the alternative a scooter. The father of respondent was unable to meet the said demand of the husband/Ravinder Kumar. Resultantly, the respondent/wife at the instigation of the other accused including the petitioners, was maltreated by her husband/Ravinder Kumar. She was ultimately turned out of the house in three clothes and after being given a good beating in April, 1994. All the dowry items/Istridhan of the respondent wife was kept back and misappropriated and the same was not returned even on demand to the respondent/wife. The respondent filed the complaint on 24.4.1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1.

Out of the four accused arrayed in the complaint, namely Ravinder Kumar son of Gian Chand, Bimla Rani wife of Gian Chand, Krishan Lal son of Gian Chand and Raj Rani wife of Ravi Kumar, daughter of Gian Chand, the accused No. 2 and 3, namely Bimla Rani wife of Gian Chand and Krishan Lal son of Gian Chand have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for quashing of the impugned complaint, copy Annexure P1 and the summoning order dated 21.3.1997, copy Annexure P2.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondent wife, who filed written statement, contending, inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had alternative remedy of approaching the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, under Section 245 Cr.P.C., but they have chosen to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. On merits, the allegations made in the complaint were reiterated and the averments made in the petition against the respondent were denied. It was alleged that the respondent never behaved negatively, which made it difficult for the petitioners to live with her. The respondent, it was averred, tried her best to preserve herself in the matrimonial house but she was forced by her husband and the petitioners to leave the matrimonial house. The impugned order of summoning passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was defended as being in accordance with the evidence led by the complainant/respondent before the said Court and in accordance with law.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the averments made in the petition as also the reply filed by the respondent.

The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent/wife created such a situation in the house which made it difficult for the petitioners to live with her. The husband of the complainant/wife, i.e. son of the petitioner No. 1, started following the steps of his wife and started misbehaving with the petitioners and other members of his family. The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was moved by the husband of the complainant on 2.3.1996. The respondent/wife filed the impugned complaint as a counter blast not only against her husband, but against the petitioners, i.e. motherinlaw, brotherinlaw and married sisterinlaw and made general allegations in the said complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, it is contended, passed the order of summoning without proper appreciation of the evidence led by the complainant. It was specifically averred that no articles of dowry were entrusted to the petitioners and as such, there was no question of misappropriating the same and hence the offence under Section 406 IPC was not made out. It was also alleged that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is alleged to have been committed only by the husband of the respondent and not by the petitioners. It has been pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate while summoning the petitioners held that no prima facie case was made out for summoning accused Nos. 1 to 3, which included the petitioners, for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and it was only the husband Ravinder Kumar, who was summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 406/498A IPC. Accused No. 2 and 3 were summoned for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC only and no offence was committed by Raj Rani, married sister of the husband of the complainant.

A perusal of the impugned order of summoning will go to show that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class properly appreciated the evidence led before him by the respondent/wife and after sifting the evidence he held that no prima facie case was made out against accused No. 4 Raj Rani and sisterinlaw of the complainant. Apart from it, the learned Judicial Magistrate after carefully perusing the evidence held that no offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was made out against the present petitioners, namely Bimla Rani and her sonKrishan Lal. It was only Ravinder Kumar, who was summoned for both the offences, i.e. Sections 406/498A IPC. A careful perusal of the impugned order of summoning, Annexure P2 goes to show that the order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate after due application of mind. A perusal of the averments made in the complaint and particularly the averments made regarding the dowry given by father of the respondent/wife to the petitioners and her husband and extracted as above, will go to show that the allegations made therein are specific and categorical. This Court will not in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sift evidence and record a speculative finding on facts. The learned Magistrate will at the appropriate stage consider the evidence and also the credibility or reliability of the same.

In Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RCR 590, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely by observing that allegations in the complaint/FIR are vague and indefinite. The relevant observation is to be found in para 9 of the judgment, which reads as under :

"If the first information report, the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code, and the other material collected during investigation are judged at the touchstone of the above principles, the necessary conclusion is that there is a ground to presume that the petitioners have committed an offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code, at this stage, the prosecution case cannot be thrown merely by observing that the averments or the allegations in the complaint/first information report are vague and indefinite inasmuch as the necessary particulars regarding the year, month, date of time have not been mentioned. From a bare reading of the FIR it is evident that there are clear accusations of causing harassment and cruel treatment to the daughter of the complainant on account of insufficient dowry as well as not meeting the further demand stated to have been made by the petitioners regarding refrigerator, cooler and colour television etc. The approach and finding of the Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment are based on just and cogent reasons with which I am in full agreement."

In Sunita Rani v. Ranjit Kaur, 1997(2) RCR 178, it was held that the complaint cannot be quashed on the allegations that there was no averment about specific article of dowry item entrusted to each accused. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners/accused, this Court held in para 19 of the judgment as under :

"Now coming to the facts of the present case as contained in the allegations made in the complaint, Annexure P1, there are allegations qua the accused referred to in the complaint which include the petitioners and about whom it has been alleged that they along with other accused actively participated in the marriage of the respondentwife with coaccused Harinder Pal and the dowry articles at the time of the marriage were entrusted to the accused persons including the petitioners and further the accused persons including the petitioners participated in the demand and harassment and torture of the respondentwife for bringing more dowry and in refusing to return the dowry items entrusted to them. These allegations cannot at this stage be held to be prima facie absurd, unreliable and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners (accused). The criminal complaint and the criminal proceedings have not been shown to be manifestly attended with mala fide and/or instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners accused with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. The allegations and counterallegations are all to be gone into at the trial of the case which cannot and ought to be brought to an abrupt end at the threshold of the criminal proceedings by quashing the same. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of Tamil Naidu v. Thirukkural Perumal, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 124 : 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 387 held that the power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be held with extreme care and caution. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings."

It was also held in para 20 that the order of summoning the accused was only an interim order and the same cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of law.

In the instant case, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has properly appreciated the material placed before him and no fault can be found with the impugned order of summoning.

Resultantly, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.