Gurmukh Singh vs Davinder Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Gurmukh Singh and his mother Bachhitar Kaur have come to this court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 7 dated March 6, 1990 Annexure P1 pending in the court of JMIC Fatehgarh Sahib, summoning order dated September 15, 1990 Annexure P2 passed by Shri P.S. Virk, JMIC Fatehgarh Sahib.

Davinder Kaurrespondent is the wife of Gurmukh Singh, petitioner. According to the averments made in the complaint Annexure P1 the marriage of the respondent was solemnised with Gurmukh Singh at Village Harbanspura. P.S. Sirhind and at the time of marriage, substantial presents in the form of ornaments, cloths utensils and other household articles were made. List of the articles is contained in AnnexureA attached to the complaint. The articles of dowry were entrusted to both of the petitioners who had attended the marriage alongwith others and this entrustment was made in the presence of Pritam Singh, Havela Singh, Gurbax Singh and Dalip Singh. These articles were meant for the use of the respondent and were meant to be her Istridhan. She was, however, deprived of the use of these articles on one pretext or the other Gurmukh Singh petitioner stated making a demand for a Car or Rs. 1 lac. In February, 1987, he renewed this demand and in May 1987, the respondent was turned out of the house and was told that she should return only if the brought a Car or Rs. 1 lac. The petitioners had, thus, committed criminal breach of trust of the articles.

On the basis of the preliminary evidence recorded, the learned Magistrate passed order Annexure P2, and summoned both the petitioners for offence under Section 406 read with Section 534 IPC. On May 10, 1991 Gurmukh Singh appeared and made an application that he was ready to return "whatever articles of dowry were with him" and further prayed that the complainant respondent be asked to take whatever articles of dowry are with the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that no offence had been committed and the allegations made were vague and at the earliest occasion, Gurmukh Singhpetitioner had in fact offered to return the articles of dowry.

In view of the application Annexure P3 filed by Gurmukh Singh, one fact is clear that dowry had been deceived by the petitioners at the time of marriage. The truthfulness of the allegations as to how much dowry was given is a matter of evidence. The principle as to when complaint at its initial stage may be quashed was considered by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, 1990(1) Recent CR 173 quote :

"In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does dot disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court."

The present complaint cannot be described to fall in any of the categories in which quashing will be justified. Whatever defences the petitioner may have, he shall have to establish it before the trial Court. This petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

Petitioner dismissed