Harpal Singh vs Ravinder Kaur

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Harpal Singh and others have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint against them under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. Annexure P/1 and summoning order Annexure P/2.

The complaint was filed against the petitioners by Ravinder Kaur wife of Harpal Singh petitioner. Gurnam Kaur petitioner is the mother of Harpal Singh and Surinder Kaur petitioner is his sister. As per averments made in the complaint marriage of Ravinder Kaur was solemnised with Harpal Singh in September, 1984 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies and thereafter they lived and cohabited together as husband and wife upto 1988 at Killa Rajpur, District Ludhiana. A daughter named Soni was born out of this wedlock. At the time of marriage dowry articles as given in the list Annexure A.1 were entrusted to the petitioners with the clear understanding that those were meant for the exclusive use of the complainant and were to be handed over to her as soon as she reached her matrimonial house, on her demand. The petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry as that was far less than their expectations and they started maltreating the complainant. She was given beating many a time by her husband at the instigation of his mother and sister. On 12.8.1988 the complainant was given merciless beating and she was turned out of the house. She was not allowed to take her minor daughter with her. She narrated all these facts to her father and a panchayat was taken to the house of the petitioners for rehabilitation of the complainant. The petitioners refused to keep the complainant with them and they insulted the panchayat. They retained all the dowry articles and did not return the same in spite of demand.

The petitioners alleged that the allegations made in the complaint did not disclose any offence against them as there was nonspecific entrustment of dowry articles to any person and the allegations were vague. The allegations regarding maltreatment were also general in nature and no specific role was attributed to the petitioners. On the date of marriage of the respondent, petitioner No. 3 was minor and there was no question of entrusting any dowry articles to her.

In the return filed by the respondent the averments made in the petition were denied and it was contended that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. were made out from the allegations in the petition and the petitioners were rightly summoned to face trial for those offences.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was urged on behalf of the respondent that in the complaint it was specifically mentioned that articles mentioned in Annexure ''A'' were dowry articles given at the occasion of marriage of the complainant and these were entrusted to the petitioners with a clear understanding that they were to hand over the same to the respondent on her demand. The petitioners were not satisfied with those articles and they continued maltreating the respondent for not bringing adequate dowry and they also retained the dowry articles, so prima facie the offences under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. were made out against the petitioners and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on the ground that the allegations were gauge and indefinite and did not spell out ingredients of any offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that so far as petitioners No. 1 and 2 were concerned the allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles were prima facie there but petitioner No. 3 could not have been entrusted with any articles she being a minor girl of 14 years of age at the time of occasion of the marriage of the respondent. She also never maltreated the respondent nor any specific instance regarding maltreatment of the respondent at her hands is mentioned in the complaint Annexure P/1.

I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel and I find that there are specific averments in the complaint that Articles mentioned in the list Annexure P/1 were entrusted to the petitioners at the time of marriage and there was an assurance that these articles were to be delivered to the respondent on reaching her matrimonial house as those were exclusively meant for her use. However, Petitioner No. 3 sister of Harpal Singh was minor at that time and it was not likely that articles of dowry were entrusted to the minor girl when the same could be entrusted to the husband and motherinlaw of the complainant. She appears to have been roped in on account of her relationship with the other two petitioners. So far as allegations of cruelty are concerned, the same too are general in nature and no specific instance is given when the respondent suffered cruel treatment at the hands of her sisterinlaw. There are general allegations in the complaint that the respondent was often given beating by her husband at the instigation of his mother and sister but in para No. 5 of the complaint there is mention of one specific instance that occurred on 12.8.1993 when the complainant was alleged to have received merciless beating at the hands of her husband. That was stated to have been given at the instigation of his mother. Petitioners No. 3 is not attributed any role in that incident. There are, thus, no certain, definite and clear allegations regarding the commission of any offence by petitioner No. 3. While Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were rightly summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 406, 498A I.P.C. vide order Annexure P/2.

As a result I partly allow this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order Annexure P/2 qua Surinder Kaur petitioner No. 3. The trial Court will proceed with the case in accordance with law against Harpal Singh and Gurnam Kaur petitioners.