Harbans Lal and anr. vs Rama Rani .

B.S. Nehra, J.

This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 411991 whereby he directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to hold further enquiry against the petitioners, in the complaint filed by the respondent, either himself or through a competent Judicial Magistrate.

The facts of the case, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under sections 406 and 408A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for punishing the petitioners, who are fatherinlaw and motherinlaw respectively of the respondent, and Ashwani Kumar, her husband, for maltreating her and for the return of the articles of dowry given by her parents in her marriage with Ashwani Kumar. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, issued process under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code against Ashwani Kumar but no such process was issued against the present petitioners, which, by implication, meant that the learned, Magistrate had refused to issue any process against them " (petitioners) Against the later part of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, the respondent preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Ludhiana which eventually came up for disposal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who allowed the revision petition holding that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners and remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana, with the direction that he should hold further enquiry into the matter in accordance with law, either himself or through a competent tent Judicial Magistrate.

The averments in the complaint filed by the respondent, briefly summarised, are these: The respondent was married to Ashwani Kumar according to Hindu rites on 30.6.1982 at Ludhiana. They cohabited to gether and were blessed with a male child. Her parents had spent about Rs. 60,000/ on her marriage. A large number of customary articles were given as dowry by her parents to the accused. These articles were entrusted to the three accused with the understanding that they would hand over the same to the respondent. But shortly after the marriage, the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar started picking up quarrels with her on trifles. They were not satisfied with the dowry despite the fact that her (respondent) father had, given customary gifts worth Rs. 2,000/ to the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar, when a male child was born to the respondent. The petitioner and Ashwani Kumar demanded Rs. 10,000/ for the purchase of scooter but her parents paid only Rs. 3,000/ to them, Ashwani Kumar purchased a scooter with the help of this amount. The petitioners were also given a Kelvinator refrigerator by her parents. Despite this, they continued maltreating her. In the course of time, their demands for dowry continued to increase. On 31.7.1988, at about 8 p.m., they gave her beating and turned her out of their house along with her child. She went, to her parents house and narrated the occurrence. The petitioners and Ashwani Kumar had retained all the articles of dowry. On 181988. the respondent, her father and mother, Kishori Lal, Roshan Lal and Satish Kumar came to the petitioner''s house for reconciliation but to no avail. They expressed their dissatisfaction about the dowry. The respondent filed an application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against Ashwani Kumar. In this complaint, a compromise was effected in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, whereby he (Ashwani Kumar) took her with him to his house after admitting, his fault but after some time he again started maltreating her and demanding dowry. She had to leave the petitioner''s house after being turned out. Her parents took a Panchayat to the house of the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar but they did not agree to keep her in their house as the wife of Ashwani Kumar. Though another Panchayat was convened on 6 1.1988, yet it did not yield any result. On the contrary, the petitioners and Aswani Kumar insisted that she should first sign a divorce petition and only thereafter they would return her dowry articles and Stri Dhan to her. Thereupon a Joint divorce petition was prepared. The respondent and Ashwani Kumar signed the same. The petitioners and Aswani Kumar also obtained the signatures of the respondent on some blank papers. On the pretext that after filing the joint petition, they would return the articles of dowry and Shri Dhan to her. The joint petition for divorce was filed in the Court on 24.11.1988 but the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar returned to her only a Sofa set, a bed, an empty iron box and an iron almirah, which were in broken condition. However, the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar retained with them all other articles of the respondent''s Shri Dhan. Besides, she was threatened that if she made any further demand, she would be eliminated. The joint petit ion for divorce was dismissed by the Court on 1.12.1988. The respondent made an application before the learned District Judge for the return of the articles of her dowry but she did not get any relief. This resulted in the filing of the instant complaint against the petitioners and Ashwani Kumar.

The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, recorded the statements of five witnesses produced by the respondent, who supported her version. Despite this, the learned Court issued process only against Ashwani Kumar and did not issue any process against the petitioners nor was the complaint dismissed against them.

It has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has not levelled any specific allegation with regard to the entrustment of the alleged articles of dowry to the petitioners nor she his made any specific allegation against them about any particular maltreatment being meted to her at their hands. The complaint, the main substance of which has been discussed above while setting out, the facts of the case does not indicate the entrustment of any specific article of dowry by her parents to the petitioners or about any specific act of maltreatment being meted out by them to her. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that it is customary that articles of dowry are entrusted by the bride''s parents to the bridegroom''s parents during the marriage ceremony and, therefore, it should be presumed that these articles were entrusted to the petitioners by the parents of the respondent at the time of the marriage. In support of his contention he relied upon Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 Supreme Court 628 . The headnote of this judgment reads that the husband and inlaws are the trustees of Shri Dhan. They are, therefore, bound to return the same if and when demanded by the married woman. Relying on this judgment, counsel urged that the petitioner is entitled to get back, articles of Shri Dhan and dowry from the petitioners. The contention is unacceptable for the head note of the reported case does not represent the true aspect of the case. The facts of that case have been discussed in para 10 of the report. The perusal of this paragraph shows that there was a clear allegation in the complaint that the bride''s parents and relatives gave by way of dowry articles inclusive of golden ornaments and other things in the marriage and these articles were entrusted to accused No. 1 to 6 from whom their return was sought by her (the wife). The facts of this case, thus, do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In fact they support the plea of the petitioner that in the absence of a specific allegation regarding entrustment to a particular person, such a person cannot be arraigned as an accused in such proceedings. Similarly the paretnsinlaw cannot be implicated in such a case by the daughterinlaw merely on the basis of vague allegations being levelled by her against her parentsinlaw regarding maltreatment.

On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has in the first instance been placed on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Chand Rani v. Smt. Sunita Rani, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 , to support the contention that in the absence of specific allegation in the complaint about the entrustment of any article to any of the relatives, a case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out, against such accused. The second case on which learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance is Gunwant Raj and others v. Madhu Sharma, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 607 in which it was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that in a complaint by the wife and her relatives for misappropriation of articles of dowry no case can be said to have been made out against such accused in the absence of specific allegation against the particular accused. Both these cases have a direct bearing on view facts of the instant case before this Court.

At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that the respondent has failed to level any specific allegation against the petitioners regarding the entrustment of any specific article of dowry or Shri Dhan to them by her parents at the time of the marriage. She has also failed to level any specific allegation against them with regard to her alleged maltreatment at their hands. Relying on Smt. Chand Rani''s case (supra) and Gunwant Raj''s case (supra), it is found that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is unsustainable.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted and the impugned order whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. to hold further enquiry into the matter in accordance with law either himself or through a competent Judicial Magistrate against the petitioners is quashed. Resultantly, the learned trial Court is directed to discontinue the proceedings against the petitioners.