Darshan Lal and Others vs Manjit Kaur

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 6 dated 20.2.2007 under Sections 406/420/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code titled as Manjit Kaur v. Satinder Kumar and Ors. (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura District Patiala and summoning order dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

The contents of the complaint (Annexurfe P-1) read as under:

That the marriage of Manjit Kaur complainant was solemnized with Satinder Kumar accused No. 1 on dated 17.11.2003 at Rajpura.

That the parents of Manjit Kaur has given more dowry, according to their capacity, in the marriage of Manjit Kaur. The list of dowry articles is attached.

That thereafter, Manjit Kaur started residing with her husband Satinder Kumar, accused No. 1, father-in-law and mother-in-law Laxmi Devi, Devar Sukhwinder Kumar and Nanands Rajni and Neetu accused at Chhachhrauli (Haryana).

That after the marriage, the accused No. 1 to 6 have started the harassment to the complainant to the effect that the complainant has brought less articles in her dowry and their respect has fallen down in the Brotherhood.

That in the marriage, the ornaments of gold, ornaments of silver were entrusted to Darshan Lal accused No. 2. The watch, press, fridge, sofa-set, Table set etc. were handed over to Satinder accused No. 1. The clothes, utensils, Petty, Sewing Machine, Trunk, Suitcase which are mentioned in the attached lists. That whole articles were given to accused No. 3. Beside this, heater, Ice-cream set, Lemon-set, decoration items and furniture, blanket, beds etc. were handed over to accused No. 4 and rest of the articles which are mentioned in the list attached, in which there are Juice Machine, Cooler, Almirah, Mattress etc. were given to accused No. 5 and 6. All these articles were handed over to abvoe mentioned accused so that the above mentioned articles be kept as Trust and it should not be mis-appropriated and be returned to complainant. But inspite of that the accused No. 1 to 6 were given the case amount of Shagun by the parents and other their relatives.

That after the marriage, a girl was born on 23.11.2004 to the complainant. The accused have not asked for any money which was incurred upon the birth of girl and all the expenditures for the birth of a girl were borne by the parents of complainant. The birht of girl was at Rajpura. But no one of the above mentioned accused came to see the girl.

That after the marriage, the accused No. 1 to 6 together used to beat the complainant and they said bring Motor-cycle and Rs. 50,000/-cash from your parents because the accused persons have to get repair of their house and money is needed.

That the accused No. 1 to 6 have beaten the complainant many times and turned out of the house.

That the parents of the complainant, Naresh Kumar, Ishar Dass, Ram Pal along with complainant went to the house of accused persons for under standing and left her there and have paid other money many time but the accused persons were not satisfied. They were demanding money for connection.

That the accused No. 1 to 6 have levelled the false allegation against the complainant that if you want to take poison. But infact, the accused No. 1 to 6 wanted to given poison and kill her. And for this, they have done efforts 1/2 times but they could not succeed. And in the end, the accused persons have beaten the complainant on 8.11.2006 and asked for leaving the house. The complainant has told all this story on 9.11.2006 to her father. Thereupon, father of the complainant came on 9.11.2006 and took away her to his house in three wearing clothes. From that day, she is residing with her parents.

That the complainant has asked many times to the accused to return back the articles of dowry but they have flatly refused. So, in this way the accused have committed the offence of mis-appropriation and fraud. Therefore, proceedings be taken against them and accused be punished.

That the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused No. 1 at Banwari (Rajpura) and the dowry articles were entrusted at Rajpura. Therefore, this Hon''ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and decide this case.

It is therefore, requested by presenting the complaint that action be taken against the accused persons for the offence u/s 406, 420, 498A/34 IPC and they be punished strictly.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners are the parents and younger brother and sisters of the husband of Respondent. General allegations have been levelled in the complaint.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/Respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just Criminal Misc. No. M-21497 of 2010 (O and M) -7-conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has averred that after her marriage, all the accused had started harassing her on account of insufficient dowry. The articles entrusted to each of the Petitioner have been mentioned in para 5 of the complaint. It has also been averred in the complaint that all the accused used to give beatings to the complainant and demanded a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-. On 8.11.2006, the Respondent was asked to leave the house after she was given beatings by all the accused. Since serious allegations have been levelled against the Petitioners in the complaint, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the complaint at the very threshold. Now the case is listed before the trial Court for recording of pre- charge evidence.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.