Gunwant Raj vs Madhu Sharma

S. S. Grewal, J.

This petition i.e. Cri. Misc. No. 8243M of 1989 the Gunwant Raj and others Versus Madhu Sharma, filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P1) as well as subsequent proceedings including the summoning order dated 18.7.1989, passed by Shri R.P. Nagrath, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pathankot. In this petition, Gunwant Raj petitioner No. 1 is the husband, Gopal Dass and Raj Rani, petitioners No. 2 and 3, are the parentsinlaw, Kamlesh Kumari and Prem Lata petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the sistersinlaw, and Pushkar Raj is brotherinlaw, of Madhu Sharma, respondent.

Cri. Misc. No. 4953M of 1990, re : Jagat Singh Versus Smt. Balbir Kaur has been filed by Jagat Singh fatherinlaw of Smt. Balbir Kaur complainant, for quashment of complaint dated 2451988 (Annexure P1) filed by her against him and his other relations under sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, read with section 405 IPC as well as the summoning order dated 30111988 (Annnexure P2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby the present petitioner as well as Kulwinder Singh his son and husband of the complainant, were summoned under section 406 IPC.

Cri. Misc. No 1431M of 1989 re : Jathedar Kirpal Singh and another v. Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P2) filed by Jaswinder Kaur against her husband Gurdip Singh, her parentsinlaw Jathedar Kirpal Singh and Smt. Nirmal Kaur (the present petitioners), Shamsher Singh her brotherinlaw, Karamvir Kaur her sisterinlaw and Bhupinder Kaur her husband''s brother''s wife, under sections 406 and 498A IPC as well as the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 2711989 (Annexure P4) whereby the order of the trial Magistrate dated 481988 (Annexure P3) for summoning the present petitioners as well as their son Gurdip Singh under sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, was maintained.

As common questions of law are involved all these three cases shall be disposed of by one judgment.

It will be convenient to refer to the facts in case Gunwant Raj etc. Versus Modhu Sharma, Cri. Misc. No. 8243M of 1989.

As per allegations in the complaint (Annexure P1) the marriage between the complainant and Gunwant Raj was solemnized on 21.4.1982 at Pathankot according to Hindu rites. At the time of the marriage, the parents, other relations and friends of the complainant gave her a number of articles and cash as detailed in Annexure `A'', which constituted her Istridhan. The complainant entrusted the same to the accused expecting that these articles will be returned by them to her as and when demanded. After the marriage, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and gave beating and maltreated the complainant in order to coerce her to bring more dowry. Parents of the complainant gave Rs. 30,000/ cash for purchasing Mini Bus, Rs. 6,000/ for construction of the body of the Mini Bus, Rs. 14,000/ for purchasing a tractor to her husband. Besides Rs. 61,000/ were given to her husband at the time of the marriage. Parents of the complainant also gave Rs. 1,000/ to the husband to contest the election of village Sarpanch and Rs. 7,000/ for his, treatment. Even then the accused gave her beating and acted with cruelty and maltreated her for about 2 years and thereafter ousted her from her matrimonial home. Gunwant Raj her husband contracted second marriage and he refused to keep the complainant with him as his legally wedded wife. The accused also openly refused to hand over the articles constituting her Istridhan which were entrusted to all of them in good faith and posing a trust in them with the belief that they will give back the Istridhan of the complainant to her and these articles were still with them and they have misappropriated the same.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the complainantwife, it was mainly contended that the facts mentioned in the complaint and other material on the record, taken at face value, clearly make out a case against the husband, parentsinlaw and other relations concerning entrustment of articles of dowry (constituting istridhan) to them at the time of the marriage; that they had refused to return her istridhan and had dishonestly and malafide retained the same, in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant. As such prima facie case punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the husband and his aforesaid relations including the petitioners.

Reliance in this respect has been placed on the authority of the apex Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 628 , wherein permajority view, it was held that where the allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of istridhan properties was made out by the married woman in her complaint and the allegations were clear, specific and unambiguous and all the facts stated in the complaint constitute the offence under Section 405/406, the right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant. Since the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in Sec. 405/406, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint under Sec. 482.

There is no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in Pratibba Rani''s case (supra). However, while dealing with quashment of criminal proceedings against the accused in initial stages under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, as to whether clear specific and unambiguous allegations levelled in the impugned complaint/FIR taken at their face value make out a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code or not, and that resort to criminal proceedings in the circumstances of such a case would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly argued that in the absence of any clear, specific and unambiguous allegations either concerning entrustment of articles of dowry (constituting istridhan) at the time of the marriage, to a particular accused, or, at a later stage, in the absence of specific allegations either that the accused refused to return istridhan, or, articles of dowry entrusted to any individual accused or, that the same were dishonestly and malafide retained by that particular accused, in order to cause wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the complainant, no prima facie case for commission of any offence punishable under section 405 IPC would be made out against that particular accused.

Mere general allegations in the complaint either concerning entrustment of articles of dowry constituting istridhan to all the accused, or their refusal to return such articles of dowry to the complainant wife at a later stage, would not per se be sufficient to make out a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under section 405 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code against any particular accused. In the absence of clear, specific and unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment of specific articles of dowry to any particular accused, and in the absence of further allegations against him that he had dishonestly or with malafide intention retained the same and had refused to return those articles to the wife for whose exclusive use such articles were allegedly entrusted to him no prima facie case for commission of such offence would be made out against that particular accused. Normally in cases relating to commission of offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code a particular accused can prima facie be said to be responsible only for his individual acts and cannot be fastened with joint, or, vicarious liability.

These arguments were neither raised, nor this aspect was specifically considered or decided by the apex Court in Pratibha Rani''s case referred to above. The main question dealt with in Pratibha Rani''s case (supra) was that on a woman entering the matrimonial home, the ownership of istridhan property, does not become joint with the husband or his relations and even if istridhan property of a married woman is placed in the custody of her husband or inlaws, they would be deemed to be trustees, and bound to return the same in and when demanded by her. The aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are quite pertinent while dealing with the question of quashment of criminal proceedings concerning commission of criminal breach of trust, in respect of articles of dowry or istridhan property of the complainantwife.

I find ample support in my view front the Single Bench authority of this court in Balkishan and ors. v. Poonam Verma, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 657 , wherein the proceedings against the relations of the husband against whom there was no specific allegation about entrustment of any article of dowry has been made in the complaint and there was only bald assertion that the accused persons turned out the wife and kept such articles in their custody, such proceedings against relations of the husband were directed to be quashed.

15 This is the consistent view followed in various Single Bench authorities of this Court including those cited below :

Inderjit and ors. v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527 , Balwinder Kumar and anr. v. Kashama Devi alias Shama Devi, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Report 67 : 1988(1) CLR 358 , Anokh Singh and ors. v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 497 : 1990(2) CLR 224 , Surjit Singh v. Smt. Jaswant Kaur, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 687 : 1990(1) CLR 575 , Kishan Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 13 , Shori Lal and others v. Smt. Nisha and another, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 276 : 1989(1) CLR 126 and Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 : 1989(1) CLR 107.

Since all the relevant facts including the proposition of law enunciated in Pratibha Rani''s case (supra) have duly been taken into consideration, there does not seem to be any cogent reason to differ from the view expressed in the afore cited single Bench authorities of this Court. However, while deciding quashment of criminal proceedings (at initial stage) on the basis of the impugned first information reports or criminal complaints, reference, has to be made to clear, specific and unambiguous allegations levelled therein against any particular accused.

Perusal of the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) in Cri. Misc. No. 8243M of 1989 re : Gunwant Raj and others v. Madhu Sharma, does not reveal that there are any clear, specific and unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment of specific articles of dowry constituting istridhan to the accusedpetitioners (other than the husband) at the time of solemnization, of the said marriage. There are only vague and general allegations concerning handing over the articles of dowry to the accused petitioners (other than the husband). Thus, the allegations against the accusedpetitioners (other than the husband) concerning demand of more dowry or their refusal to return istridhan, or, further allegations that they too acted with cruelty towards the wife, cannot be taken at their face value to make out a prima facie case under sections 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against such petitioners. The impugned complaint (Annexure P1) as well as the consequent proceedings including the summoning order dated July 18, 1989, passed by Shri R. P. Nagrath, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot, are directed to be quashed against the accusedpetitioners, other than Gunwant Raj petitioner. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The trial Court, however, would proceed with the trial of the case against Gunwant Raj accused according to law, and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within four months.

Perusal of the impugned complaint in Cri. Misc. No. 1431M of 1989 re : Jathedar Kirpal Singh and another v. Jaswinder Kaur, reveals that there are no clear, specific and unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment of articles of dowry constituting istridhan to the accusedpetitioners (other than the husband) at the time of the solemnization of the said marriage. There are only vague and general allegations concerning handing over of articles of dowry to such accused (other than the husband). Besides, there are no specific, clear or unambiguous allegations against the accused petitioners other than the husband concerning demand of more dowry or refusal on their part to return specific articles of dowry entrusted to them, or allegations that such accused acted with cruelty towards the wife, cannot be taken at their face value to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner under section 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, there are specific a legations against the husband with regard to entrustment of articles of dowry, refusal on his part to return those articles, as, well as acting with cruelty towards the wife. Thus, the impugned complaint (Annexure P2), summoning order (Annexure P3) and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated January 27, 1989 (Annexure P4) qua the present petitioners only, are directed to be quashed. However, the trial Court would proceed according to law as far as Gurdip Singh husband of the complainant is concerned and dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within four months.

Perusal of the impugned complaint, in Cri. Misc. No. 4953M of 1990 re : Jagat Singh v. Smt. Balbir Kaur and another clearly indicates that there are no clear, specific or unambiguous allegations concerning entrustment of specific articles of dowry constituting istridhan to the accused. petitioner at the time of the solemnization of the said marriage. There are only general and vague allegations concerning handing over of articles of dowry to the accusedpetitioner (other than the husband). Thus the allegations against the accusedpetitioner (other than the husband) concerning demand of more dowry or their refusal to return istridhan, or further allegations that they too acted cruelty towards the wife cannot be taken at their face value to make out a prima facie case against such accused petitioner. Thus, the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) as well as summoning order under section 406 IPC (Annexure P2) passed on the basis of the said complaint as far as Jagat Singh accusedpetitioner is concerned, are directed to be quashed. The learned trial Court would proceed according to law against Kulwinder Singh husband of the complainant on the basis of the said complaint and dispose of the case expeditiously. preferably within four months.

All the three petitions are accordingly disposed of to the extent indicated above. The copies of the orders be sent to the trial courts/Sessions Courts, concerned for strict compliance.