Harinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

The petitioners sought quashment of first information report (Annexure P1), registered against them at Police Station Mansa, under Sections 406/498A/506, Indian Penal Code.

In brief, according to the allegations made in the first information report, marriage of Jasbir Kaur, first informant, with Harinder Singh petitioner was solmenised on 28.3.1978. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments and other article were given in dowry for her use. The said articles were entrusted by her father to her husband Harinder Singh, and her fatherinlaw Gurdev Singh, who brought all these articles to their house. She was harassed to bring more dowry by all the three petitioners. Her father gave Rs. 20,000/ before Baldev Singh Sarpanch, her mother''s sister''s son. The petitioners gave her beating, and, ultimately, in January 1984 they turned her out of their house and did not allow her to take any of her articles. On the intervention of the Panchayat in July, 1987, the first informant was against brought and left in the house of her inlaws, and, gold ornaments, clothes and cash worth Rs. 5,000/ were given to her inlaws for her use. After a few days further demand of Rs. 50,000/ was made by her inlaws. They started giving beatings to her, and, threatened to kill her. About six days prior to the lodging of the first information report, she was turned out of the house by all the three petitioners, who, again asked her to bring Rs. 50,000/ in cash from her father, and, only then they would keep her in their house. Thus, according to the first informant, the three petitioners aforesaid retained the articles of her dowry, valued at Rs. 1,50,000/, which was misused by them, and, they also threatened to kill her in case she did not bring Rs. 50,000/ or tried to pressurise the petitioners through Panchayat.

According to the petitioners, the first information report was lodged against them with mala fide intention in order to harass and humiliate them, and, that no offence, as alleged in the first information report, was made out against them.

It was rightly conceded by the learned Counsel for the parties that in order to dispose of this petition, only the allegations made in the first information report have to be taken into consideration. In order to constitute an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, two ingredients are essential : Firstly, entrustment of property to the accused, and, secondly, dishonest misappropriation thereof.

Bare perusal of the first information report does not indicate that any specific article has been entrusted to any particular accused. The fact remains that there are specific allegations that after her marriage, when she went to the house of the petitioners, all the three of them had harassed her to bring more dowry, and, she was maltreated and given beatings. Her father had to part with Rs. 20,000/ at one stage, and, gold ornaments, clothes and cash amounting to Rs. 5,000/ in July, 1987. Yet another demand of Rs. 50,000/ was, allegedly, made when the first informant was turned out of their house by the petitioners, who retained articles of dowry. They also threatened to kill her in case she was unable to bring that amount.

Considering the allegations made in the first information report, it cannot be said that prima facie no case, at least under Sections 498A and 506, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners is made out, as the allegations in respect of the said offences are quite clear, specific and unambiguous.

Faced with this situation, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners, for subjecting Jasbir Kaur, first informant, to cruelty or, criminal intimation related to a remote period, and, as such no cognizance with regard to offences under Sections 498A and 506, Indian Penal Code, can be taken, in view of the specific bar, as contemplated under Section 468 of the said Code.

The argument is devoid of any merit. The first information report against the petitioners was lodged with the Police on 31.3.1988. Cognizance in respect of the acts committed by the petitioners, which constitute cruelty, can be taken within a period of three years under clause (c), subsection (2) of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nor, possibly, there can be any legal bar for taking cognizance of the acts committed by the petitioners, which constitute offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no cogent reason to quash the first information report, registered against the petitioners, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is, accordingly, declined.