Hira Lal vs State of Haryana

G. S. Chahal, J.

Pawan Kumar, petitioner 3, along with his father Hira Lal, petitioner1 and his uncle Kishan Lal, petitioner2, has come to this court in this Criminal Miscellaneous U/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR438 dated 16991, for offences u/ss 498A/406 IPC, registered at NIT Police Station, Faridabad.

The impugned FIR has been got registered on the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Seema Chopra, respondent2, wife of petitioner3, The allegations as contained in Annexure P1, in brief, are to the effect that respondent2 was married to petitioner3, as per Hindu rites on 13489. The articles, given in the list attached to Annexure P1, were given as dowry at the time of marriage. The same were entrusted to all the three petitioners with a request that the same were to be handed ever to respondent2 for being utilized by her. She went to stay at her husband''s house who was living jointly with his father and brotherinlaw. Petitioner3 was, addicted to taking liquor. These persons were not happy with the dowry given and they used to harass her. Ultimately, a demand for Rs. 50,000/ was made so that petitioner3 could open up a tailor''s shop. On account of nonfulfilment of this demand, the petitioners made the life of respondent3 miserable. She was taunted, blamed and abused and at times given beating by her husband. A son was born, out of this wedlock and the petitioners started making a claim that besides toys and clothes, she should bring in cash. The customary gifts given, however, did not satisfy the greed of the petitioners. Petitioner3 is a man of loose character. He used to bring had women in her presence to his house and keep them in closed door and spend time with them. On objection being raised she used to be beaten.. On 25.3.90, petitioner3 brought another woman to his house and closed the door from inside. Objection was raised and she was given beating and turned out of the house. All the articles of dowry were retained and in spite of demand, the same had not been returned.

The petitioners have placed on record a communication from Shri Manik Sonwane, Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad addressed to Smt. Vimal Mehra, DCP, DC''s Office Crime. Against Women Cell, New Delhi. It was incorporated therein that Smt. Seema Chopra was staying in the ''Short Stay Home Faridabad'', because of harassment by her husband Pawan Kumar and her fatherinlaw, Hira Lal. An effort had been made by the officials of the ''Short Stay Home, Faridabad,'' but no success was arrived at. Respondent2 has claimed that she would not go to her inlaws house unless she was given some assurance by the accused petitioners, since she apprehended danger to her life. This letter is dated 24393. Annexure P3 is the report made by Inspector Kapur Singh who concluded that it was not a case of cruelty and that she was not accepting the articles of her Istridhan.

There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pleas of entrustment of dowry articles are vague. It has not been stated if any specific articles were entrusted to any of the individual petitioners. A reference to communication Annexure P2 will show that respondent2 could not be present at the house of herinlaws on 25.3.90, as at that stage, she was staying at the short stay home and the Deputy Commissioner had moved the DCP for help.

In proceedings for quashing of a complaint or FIR at its initial stages, only the allegations contained therein have to be considered and only if no offence is made out the quashing is to be ordered. However, in a given case, a reference may be made to other material. In respect of this view, I derive support from the observations of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Anr. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & ors., AIR 1982 SC 949 that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. There Lordships further observed as under.

"65. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is, made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the FIR and the Court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an, offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will, generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for providing the offence. If, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual."

The respondent''s marriage with the petitioner having gone to rocks she had shifted not to her parents, but to, the Short Stay Home. As the efforts of the officials thereof failed to bring about reconciliation and rehabilitation of respondent2 to her matrimonial home, she has tried to implicate the other relations of petitioner3 and with that end in view, she has made allegations of entrustment of dowry, articles, to the relations of her husband and also made allegations of beating given to her by the petitionerhusband on a day when, she was, in fact,'' staying at the "Short Stay Home.'' If any articles of dowry were given at the time of marriage, they must obviously be with her husband and only he is liable to render their accounts to her. No doubt, the report of the Inspector, Annexure P3 shows that she was not agreeable to take back the Istridhan articles, but that will not absolve petitioner3 from returning those articles to her whenever demanded. It is a question of evidence, if any demand was made after that date.

The acts of cruelty against respondent2 are alleged to have taken at place Delhi. The authorities at Faridabad cannot take cognizance of that offence.

For the above stated reasons, the impugned FIR in respect to offence u/s 498A is quashed against all the petitioners. The FIR for offence u/s 406 IPC against Hira Lal, and Kishan Lal petitioners is also quashed. With this finding, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.