Charanjit Singh vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

Respondent Smt. Ranu was married with Pritam Lal on 9.10.1989 at Jalandhar. She filed a complaint with respect to offences punishable under Sections 406/498A and 506 IPC which is the basis of FIR No. 258 of 1994. The respondent asserted that at the time of her marriage sufficient dowry articles were given. Pritam Lal went abroad while respondent was pregnant. Subsequently, her parents shifted to Panipat. Petitioner No. 1 Charanjit Singh is father of Pritam Lal, Sheela Rani is wife of Charanjit Singh while Sukhbir is the brother of the husband of the complainant. After marriage they started assaulting and harassing her for bringing more dowry. The parents of the respondent took her to Panipat and saved her. Father of the respondent gave Rs. 20,000/ and Rs. 35,000/ in October and November, 1992. But it did not put an end to the lust of the petitioners. Petitioners Pinki and Kewal Kishore also harassed the respondent and helped petitioners 1 to 3. she was being coerced to bring more dowry. As a result of these broad facts, the above said complaint had been filed alleging that Rs. 4 lacs more were being demanded.

The petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report and the subsequent proceedings alleging that from the perusal of the FIR, no offence is drawn and in any case, the Court at Panipat had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Plea has also been raised that parties have compromised. All the articles of dowry have been returned to the respondent Smt. Renu.

In the reply filed by Smt. Renu the petition has been contested. She denied that petitioners have falsely been implicated. The Courts at Panipat were stated to be having jurisdiction because as per the respondent, demand of dowry was made at Panipat. The case of the complainant is not only related to the dowry given at the time of marriage but also demand of dowry on subsequent dates. As regards the compromise deed respondent''s defence was that it was filed for the grant of divorce. Whereabouts of Pritam Lal are not known. The compromise document was a sham document and not acted upon by either party.

In the separate reply filed by the State, if was denied that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The State denied for want of knowledge if there was any compromise and contended that petitioners were challaned in the case after the investigation was completed.

The First Information Report would be quashed alongwith the subsequent proceedings only in exceptional cases. The remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary way. The Court will use its inherent power to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. The said power can be used to secure the ends of justice. If prima facie an offence is drawn, the Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings unless there are reasons to believe that the act of prosecuting of an individual is malafide or an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the present case, respondent Smt. Renu specifically alleged that after her marriage when she was pregnant, her husband had left for abroad and has not returned. The petitioners harassed her for bringing more dowry. At this stage, contentions cannot be ignored and it cannot be held that no case is made out.

It was vehemently urged that the marriage was solemnized at Jalandhar, dowry articles were given at Jalandhar, therefore, the Court at Panipat had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. But the matter does not end here. In paragraph 6 of the complaint Smt. Renu asserts:

"That the father of the complainant went many a times to the accused with Biradri but they are not ready to hear any word. This is all under instigation and conspiracy of accused No. 4. That the accused except accused No. 4 came to Panipat in the month of August, 1993. Some other persons were with Biradri whose whereabouts are not known to the complainant. They came at Panipat and insisted that until and unless Rs. 4 lacs completed (complied) since proposed investment in marriage, we will not take the complainant back to Jalandhar. Thus, they have committed offences under Section 498A, 406 IPC. All the accused have together committed offences under Sections 498A IPC. The complainant went thrice to her matrimonial house as per decision of Biradri, but came back in January, 1994 due to repeated demands by the accused."

Perusal of the aforesaid shows that there was a demand of dowry even at Panipat and when there was a meeting, the petitioners were not ready to take back the respondent. They further demanded Rs. 4 lacs. When part of the cause of action had arisen at Panipat, the respondent could well file the complaint at Panipat.

In that event, it was highlighted that there was a compromise that had been arrived at and there was no dispute left, therefore the proceedings may well be quashed. There was no controversy being raised that in matrimonial disputes when matters are compromised in an appropriate case keeping in view that peace is maintained in the society, some FIRs have been quashed. However, in the peculiar facts, the said contention need not be probed further. The petitioners assert that there has been a compromise arrived at but this contention is not being accepted. The respondent''s case is that this was not acted upon. Pritam Lal was not traceable. When facts are in dispute, the question of quashing in FIR as such is insignificant and incompetent. Consequently, the petition being without merit must fail.

For these reasons, the petition being without merit fails and is dismissed.