Dharampal Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 100 dated 23.7.1993 registered at P.S. Division No. 5, CivilLines, Ludhiana, Under Sections 406/498A, IPC, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

First Information Report No. 100 dated 23.7.1993 Under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, Ludhiana was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Gurdeep Kaur wife of Dharam Pal Singh, wherein it was alleged that she wasmarried to Dharam Pal Singh, on 13.12.1991 at Sita Nagar, Ludhiana, and at thetime of marriage, her parents gave dowry as mentioned in Annexure-''A'' attachedto the said complaint, on the demand of accused persons in the presence ofwitnesses. It has further been averred in the First Information Report that dowry articles were entrusted to the accused persons of their undertaking that the sameshall be handed over to her for her use. The list of dowry articles was read overand entrusted to the accused in the presence of the witnesses. On a demand madefor Rs. 50,000/-, she told her husband that her parents cannot afford to give suchan huge amount as they had already spent approximately Rs. two lacs in her marriage, besides further giving a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of opening ofprinting-press. The other particulars of harassment have also been given in theFirst Information Report. As regards jurisdiction, it has been stated therein thatarticles of dowry were entrusted to the accused persons in H. No. 517/14, MohallaSita Nagar, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. Quashing of the First Information Report has been sought on the ground that perusal of the same shows that no offence under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and"there is no specific allegation about entrustment of specific articles of dowryto any particular accused". The petitioners have never treated the respondentwith cruelty and never maltreated nor forced her to bring more articles of dowry.In support of his arguments, Counsel cited judgments of this Court in Chand Raniand Ors. v. Sunita Rani 1989 (1) RCR 1, and Surjit Singh v. Jaswant Kaur ILR 1990 All 213, wherein complaint wasquashed as there was no allegation in the complaint about entrustment of anydowry articles to the accused by the parents and relatives.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view thatthere is no merit in the petition. It has come in the First Information Report thatmarriage took place on 13.12.1991 at Ludhiana and respondent-wife was subjectedto both physical as well as mental cruelty so as to force her to bring more dowry.The list of articles given at the time of marriage has been attached with thecomplaint, on the basis of which First Information Report was registered, whereinit has specifically been averred that articles which were entrusted to the petitioners,were never returned to respondent-wife on demand. In a large number of cases,it has been held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of exercising its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R. the High Court will have to proceedentirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or the documentsaccompanying the same. In the present case, clear allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of the articles of dowry, have been made by the wife and,therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that criminal breach of trustis not proved against the petitioners. Therefore, under these circumstances, thisCourt would not be justified in quashing the First Information Report at this stage.The judgments cited by the Counsel for the petitioners are of no help to him beingclearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Any observation given - ,herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

Consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed.