Gurmeet Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Smt. Gurjinder Kaur who is employed in Vijaya Bank at Faridabad was married to Gurmeet Singh according to Sikh rites on February 19, 1989. She alleged that at the time of her marriage father spent about Rs. 1.20,000/ and gave dowry articles including gold ornaments, furniture, utensils, crockery, clothes etc. These articles were entrusted to Gurmeet Singh, his mother Satwant Kaur, his brother Inderjit Singh and brother''s wife Gurmeet Kaur. After marriage Gurjinder Kaur and Gurmeet Singh left for Kashmir and Shimla and returned on 331989. Gurjinder Kaur joined her duty at Faridabad but continued visiting her matrimonial home at Rajpura on every week. During her stay at Rajpura she was taunted by her husband and his other relatives for not bringing dowry to their expectations and they demanded a coloured television and V.C.R. In the end of January, 1990 Satwant Kaur removed her gold ornaments including two Kangans, one chain and a pair of tops Her life was made miserable. Gurjinder Kaur informed her father regarding the maltreatment meted out to her by sending letters to him and on 1541993 her father took her to Ambala and requested her husband and other relatives not maltreat her. In the first week of June, 1990 Gurmeet Singh, his mother, brother and brother''s wife came to Ambala and demanded a coloured television and V.C.R. They refused to keep Gurjinder Kaur in their house till their demand was met. On these allegations Gurjinder Kaur filed a complaint against her husband Gurmeet Singh, his mother Satwant Kaur, brother Inderjit Singh and brother''s wife Gurmeet Kaur for offences under Sections 406, 493A and 120B IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. and along with the complaint a list of the articles given in dowry and entrusted to different accused was annexed. A prayer was made that complaint may be sent to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation of the case so that articles of dowry may be recovered.

On receipt of the complaint the trial Court sent the same to Station House Officer concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation When the complaint was received in the police station and its contents made out a prima facie cognizable case, a case was registered under sections 406, 498A and 120B IPC. The present petition has been filed by Gurmeet Singh and other accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing FIR No. 263 dated 1771991 registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Gurjinder Kaur and subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

The petitioners alleged that there were no specific allegations to prove entrustment of the property and any obligation to discharge the trust created and further dishonest misappropriation and retention of the property in violation of such obligation. Rather the petitioners who were government employees and bank officials were being harassed by way of filing a frivolous case. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 were living separately at Chandigarh and they had no connection, whatsoever, with the items of dowry. As far as the allegations concerning commission of offence under Section 498A IPC were concerned, the same were vague. No date, time or manner in which the complaintwife was subjected to cruelty were given in the FIR.

In the reply filed by Gurjinder Kaur complainant and Sukhdev Singh, Station House Officer, Ambala Cantt., the averments made in the petition were denied.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the instant case Gurjinder Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 498A and 120B IPC but before the Court took cognizance it sent the complaint to Station House Officer concerned for investigation of the case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The Police Officer instead of investigating the case and submitting a report to the Court concerned found that a cognizable case was made out and, thus, registered FIR No. 263 on 1771991. This registration of the case was against the orders of the Court and the first information report was liable to be quashed on this very ground. This submission of the learned counsel, does not held good as the petitioners are in no way affected by the registration of a case. The basic distinction between the complaint case and the case instituted by the police on a report is that in the former the duty of ascertaining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further with the complaint is with the learned Magistrate before whom the complaint is filed, who may either do it on the basis of the preliminary evidence adduced before him or base his finding in this regard on the enquiry report of another person or on the report submitted by the police after investigation. Even where a complaint has been filed before the Magistrate and the Magistrate has ordered investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code the police would have to submit a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and then it is for the Magistrate to decide whether a process is to be issued against the accused or not. It has been hold in the case of Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, 1978(1) SCR 615 that if the police after making investigation sent a report that no case was made out against the accused, the Magistrate could ignore the conclusion drawn by the police and take cognizance of a case under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process or in the alternative he can take cognizance of the original complaint and examine the complainant and his witnesses and thereafter issue process to the accused if he is of opinion that the case should be proceeded with. In these circumstances registration of a case can hardly cause any prejudice to the petitioners.

It was next urged on behalf of the petitioners that so far as offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned the Courts at Ambala had no jurisdiction to decide the same as no act of cruelty was committed there. After marriage the complainant had been residing at Rajpura. Whatever acts of maltreatment were alleged were committed at Rajpura. No maltreatment was meted out at Ambala and, thus, Courts at Ambala had no jurisdiction under Section 498A IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the offence under Section 498A IPC was not committed at Ambala and as such it could not be tried there and first information report, so far as it related to this offence, was liable to be quashed.

The complainant made allegations that she was given dowry articles of a value of more than Rs. 1 lac and these articles were entrusted to the accused at Ambala. They were retaining the same illegally. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there were no specific allegations regarding entrustment of particular articles of dowry to particular petitioner. In the complaint there was no mention of entrustment of any articles of dowry to accused No. 3 i.e. brother of Gurmeet Singh husband of the complainant. Inderjit Singh and his wife Gurmeet Kaur lived separately from Gurmeet Singh and both of them were employed at Chandigarh. They were involved in the case simply on account of their relationship with Gurmeet Singh as marriage of Gurjinder Kaur did not work out. It was argued on behalf of Gurjinder Kaur respondent No. 2 that there were specific allegations in the first information report regarding entrustment of different articles of dowry to each of the petitioner and it could not be said that the allegations were vague and no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out of which cognizance could be taken by the Court. At this stage meticulous analysis of the case to find out if it would end in conviction is not necessary and if a reading, of the first information report as a whole discloses ingredients of an offence then there is no justification to interfere with the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This contention of the learned counsel is valid but this Court can go into the allegations in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A perusal of the allegations made in the first information report, will show that there are specific allegations that articles mentioned at Sr. No. 7 and 8 and 21 to 35 in the list attached to the first information report were entrusted to Gurmeet Singh petitioner while articles at Sr. No. 1 to 6 i.e. gold ornaments given to Gurjnder Kaur were entrusted to mother of Gurmeet Singh. No article was, however, entrusted to Inderjit Singh brother of Gurmeet Singh but it was mentioned that articles of furniture mentioned at Sr. No. 10 to 15 and utensils, cooler etc. mentioned at Sr. No. 16 to 20 were entrusted to brother''s wife. This allegation on the face of it seems false and frivolous. Brother and brother''s wife of petitioner No. 1 who is the husband of Gurjinder Kaur are employed at Chandigarh and are not living jointly with other petitioners. There is no reason why furniture, cooker, crockery, water cooler etc. were entrusted to brother''s wife. These articles were for the use of the respondent Gurjinder Kaur. It appears that as there was disruption of marital life of the complainant so she tried to involve all the close relatives of her husband. The allegations against the brother and brother''s wife were made with an oblique motive to rope in close relatives in order to wreak vengeance from the husband. Otherwise it is neither the custom nor the practise to give such type of gifts to the husband''s brother''s wife when no article was given to the brother himself. The allegations against these two petitioners are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive and the first information report is liable to be quashed against them.

As a result, FIR No. 263 Annexure P/1 is quashed against petitioners No. 3 and 4 it is further quashed so far as offences under sections 498A & 120B IPC are concerned qua petitioners No. 1 and 2. Case for an offence under Section 406 IPC. only will proceed against Gurmeet Singh and Satwant Kaur. This petition is disposed of accordingly.