Hukami Devi and ors. vs State of Haryana and anr.

S. S. Rathor, J.

Kusum Lata, respondent No. 2 was married to Ram Nath (nonpetitioner) on 4.3.1984. Petitioner Hukami Devi is motherinlaw of Kusum Lata Petitioner Shanti Sarup and Megh Nath are fatherinlaw and brotherinlaw respectively of Smt. Kusum Lata. After this marriage, another marriage in the family of Megh Nath petitioner took place on 6.3.19.84.

Unfortunately, pious matrimonial bondage between Smt. Kusum Lata and her husband Ram Nath could not last long. A perusal of the FIR shows that strained relations between the parties started soon after the marriage. What happened after the marriage between the parties is detailed in the First Information Report in question certified copy of which has been filed with the petition with its true translation as Annexure P1/T. Relevant translated portion of the First Information Report reads as under :

"Sir

It is submitted that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized according to Hindu rites at Japadbari with Ram Nath son of Shand Sarup resident of Ajrana Kalan on 4.3.1984 and the sedan (Doli) was taken to Ajrana Kalan. At that time of marriage, the father of the complainant spent Rs. 50,000/ which included valuable articles in the nature'' of dowry. Just after the marriage, the inlaws started demanding more dowry. When my sedan reached Ajrana Kalan for the first time, I was given, some liquid for drinking, on which I fell unconscious. When I regained consciousness, I found that my ornaments were not on my body. Later'' an I came to know that those ornaments were given to the wife of my brotherinlaw Megh Nath whose marriage took place on 6.3.19.4. When I demanded the ornaments, the above named persons started taunting and torturing me and, demanding money from my parents. In the meantime I was sent to my parental home through my relations. Thereafter, I lived, at my house in Jagadhri for about 15 days. My in laws made a demand of Rs. 5000/ for purchase of a diesel engine and this my, father paid in 19" August. Thereafter in May 1984, my fatherinlaw Shanti Sarup came and demanded Rs. 5000/ from my father for installing a Sodawater factory which were paid by my father on 19.5.1985. Inspite of much payments. they were not satisfied. On one day, my in laws took me to a `Tantrik'' where chillis were put in my eyes 19 resulting in my shortsight. Thereafter I was tortured and thrown out of the house in March 1986. My husband left me. in front of the house of my parents. Thereafter my father took Panchayat on 7.12.1986 from Jagadhri to Ajrana Kalan. The Panchayat consisted of our neighbours Jagdish Chand Saini, Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Master Budh Ram, Chand Kiran and Chhatar Pal S/o Kedar Nath and my maternal uncle Ram Sharma from Kurukshetra but no settlement could be arrived at. After that a talk for the return of Istridhan which was in possession of my inlaws from the date of my marriage, was started through Panchayat but no article was returned. Instead they told that if more dowry is paid, they would take the girl.

Then, my husband Ram Nath filed a petition, for divorce in the court of Shri R.P. Bajaj at Kurukshetra which was dismissed on 15.2.1988. On 17.5.98, a Panchayat was again convened in the court premises of Kurukshetra through those very members of the Panchayat and a talk for the return of dowry articles took place, but my inlaws flatly refused to return the same. On the same day in the evening Ram Nath S/o Shanti Sarup, Shanti Sarup S/o Ganga Bishan and. Megh Nath son of Shanti Sarup came to our house at Jagadhri. At that time I and my mother alone were present in the house. On, coming inside both of them started abusing. and maltreating us and gave us a threat that if any Panchayat was convened for the return of Istridhan after this day, we would suffer had consequences. On hearing the alarm, Jagdish Saini, Om Parkash Dairwala, Shiv Kumar came there and they ran away.

It is, therefore, requested that a strict action be taken against the accused and all my dowry articles given by my parents in my marriage, which are lying with my inJaws, since the day of my marriage, be got returned., Thanking you. 7.6.1988. List of dowry articles is enclosed herewith.

xx xx xx"

On the basis of these allegations in the First Information Report the present petitioners and Ram Nath (non petitioner), husband of Smt. Kusum Lata, were proceeded against by the police and after investigation of the case, the challan was put up in the Court. All the accused were arrested but released on bail.

In due course learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 31.5.1989 (Annexure P2) ordering for framing of the charge against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 406/506 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of the First Information Report in question dated 7.6.1988 under Sections 406/420 and 498A. IPC and consequent proceedings. It is relevant to mention that no charge has been framed under Section 420 IPC vide the impugned order dated 31.5.1989.

Before averting to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that all the articles of dowry as mentioned in the list annexed with the First Information Report have been allegedly recovered from the house of the accused. Rather, investigation shows that the articles were handed over to the police by the husband of the prosecutrix namely Ram Nath who is living with his parents in the same house.'' The ]earned counsel for the .petitioners has made a statement at Bar that none of the petitioners have any claim qua the alleged dowry articles and in fact, the recovered articles too belonged to the complainant. The allegations made in the First Information Report have been analytically examined keeping in view the essential ingredients to make out prima facie an offence under Sections 466/499A, Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the First Information Report reveal that there is no allegation at all as to which articles were entrusted to which of the accused. Of course. a list of articles has been annexed with the complaint on the basis of which the First Information Report has been lodged. Said list of articles of dowry is also a part of First Information Report. But as already stated, there is not even a single word in the First Information Report, imputing necessary allegation of entrustment of a specific article to specific accused. The allegations are vague and of general nature. Even general allegation of entrustment is hardly missing in the First Information Report. When there is no allegation of entrustment, the allegations of refusal or to return dowry are too vague and irrelevant.

In the complaint it is alleged that at the time of marriage, he spent about Rs. 50,000/ which included valuable articles in the nature of dowry. Surprisingly, even it has not been alleged that the said dowry articles were entrusted to the accused. Even if it as stated in the complaint that the articles were entrusted to the accused, it would have been presumed to all the accused mentioned in the complaint. But even this allegation is not there in the complaint. Of course, the words "the accused" in the context of entrustment of dowry is also too vague a term to include each and every body of the family of the husband and her parental relations. In the First Information Report it has been alleged that in March 1986, she was turned out of her inlaws house and her husband left her at her parents, house. It has further been alleged that a Panchayat was convened by her father and was taken to the husband''s village alongwith respectables on 1751988 and in the Panchayat a talk for return of dowry articles took place but her in laws verbally refused to return the same. There is no dispute that refusal to return articles of dowry on demand amounts to an offence. As stated earlier, the factum of entrustment does not stand proved as necessary allegations are missing. If entrustment is not prima facie made out, allegations of refusal to return the dowry articles are equally irrelevant. Still it is made clear that there is no mention in the First Information Report as to from whom demand as made and who actually had refused to return the same. The words `my inlaws'' have been put in the First Information Report to implicate all. members of the inlawsfamily indiscriminately The words my inlaws again are too vague in nature. Allegation in this regard also had to be specific against each accused by name and quaspecific article of dowry.

In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, on Bal Kishan and ors. v. Poonam Verma, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 657 and Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 . In the latter judgment brother J.S. Sekhon, Judge has held that if the allegations in the complaint are that the Istridhan was entrusted to all the accused'', such allegations are vague and the complaint has to (sic). As already stated, in the First Information Report in question, even it has not been alleged that Istridhan was entrusted to all or any of the accused.

While dealing with the charge, under Section 498A of the Indian" Penal Code, it is suffice to say that such bald and belated allegations as made in the First Information are least convincing to a judicial mind parti cularly when they are made at such a belated stage. The marriage took place in March 1984 and dispute between the parties arose soon thereafter So much so, husband filed a petition for divorce which of course was dismissed on 15.2.1988. First Information Report in question is dated 7.6.1988. No credibility can be attached to the allegations in the First Information Report to the effect that ornaments part of Istridhan) were taken away by deception and handed over to the new bride of Megh Nath, petitioner No. 2 who is real brother of her husband. It is not alleged in the First information Report as to by whom such deception was employed. Even otherwise when allegation of deception is employed, it cannot be termed as cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that rupees 2,000/ were paid to the fatherinlaw for installing a diesel engine in August 1984. Again rupees 5,000/ was given to the fatherinlaw for installing a sodawater factory in the month of May, 1985 . Another allegation in the First Information Report to make out an offence under Section 498A is that chillies were put in her eyes. There is no mention as to who had put chillies in her eyes. Time, date of torturous action have not been mentioned in the complaint. Not a word has been said in the First Information Report nor any evidence has been collected during the investigation as to what harm was caused to the eyes of the complainant and as to from whom the eyes were got treated. Besides what has been stated above, it is clear that the aforesaid allegations to make out an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code have been made, also suffers from legal infirmities of vagueness and lackness of material particulars. The details regarding material particulars of date, time and manner in which complainant wag subjected to, have not been given in the First Information Report, which is the requirement of law as laid down. in Kishan Sharma and ors., v. State of Haryana, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 13 , Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1)CLR 107 : 1989(1) Recent C R. 278 and Anokh Singh v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(2) CLR 224 : 1990(1) Recent C. R. 497.

As to what are the essential ingredients to make out prima facie offence under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code. This Court has taken a consistent view that the allegations on these counts have to be specific in nature against each and every accused. General allegations of entrustment, refusal to return dowry articles and general allegation of cruelty in terms of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code have been deprecated by this Court. Some of the judgments cited above alongwith few others have been taken note of, in the light of a Supreme Court judgment reported as Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 539 (SC) : AIR 1985 SC 628 , in a well reasoned judgment passed in Criminal Misc. No. 8243 M of 1989, by brother S.S. Grewal, on 14121990 (Gunwant Raj and ors., v. Madhu Sharma). After codifying various judgments of this Court, brother S.S. Grewal, J. reiterated that if clear and specific allegations, are not made out against a particular accused, no case against the accused and husband is made out. This well scanned dictum of the judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that it is not alleged in the complaint that dowry was entrusted to the accused and regarding other allegations of refusal to return and cruelty in terms of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code the term my inlaws'' has been used. From the language of the First Information Report and allegations made therein, at the most prima facie a case against Raw Nath (nonpetitioner) husband of the prosecutrix is made out.

The matter can be looked from another angle. Offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code is punishable with maximum imprisonment for three years. In terms of Section 468 (2)(c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure cognizance of such offence can be taken within three years. As alleged in the complaint, the complaint was deceptively deprived of Istridhan on 6.3.1984. Demand of Rs. 2,000/ was made in August, 1984. Similarly on demand a sum of Rs. 5,000/ was paid by her father to the fatherinlaw on 19.5.1985. If these demands of Rs. 2,000/ and As. 5,000/ taken to be with a view to coerce her or her father to meet any unlawful demand of any property in terms of Section 498A b) (sic) then such allegations cannot be taken cognizance as the First Information Report in question was lodged on 7.6.1988 i.e. beyond three years from 19.5.1985, when last payment of Rs. 5,000/ was made to the fatherinlaw by her father. The provisions of Limitation Act are strictly applicable for an offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code as the said offence is not of continuing nature. Accordingly, all the allegations in the First Information Report pertaining to offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code are barred by time and no prosecution can. take place.

The trial Court has also erroneously framed charge under Section 506 Indian Penal Code. In the First Information Report it is alleged that when all efforts to return the Istridhan failed, the father of the complainant convened a Panchayat of the respectables in the premises of Kurukshetra Courts and on the same day, complainant''s husband Ram Nath (nonpetitoner), Shanti Sarup, her fatherinlaw and Megh Nath, her brotherinlaw came to her parental house at Jagadhri And at that time the complain mother was present in the house. The aforesaid accused persons stanted abusing and maltreating the said inmates of the house and gave a threat that if any Panchayat was convened for the return of the Istridhan after this day, they would suffer bad consequences. From these allegations, provisions of Section 506, Indian . Penal Code are sought to be attracted. But to my mind, such allegations are not sufficient to cause criminal intimidation and punishment for the said offence in terms, of Sections 503 and 506, Indian Penal Code respectively. A bare perusal of the First Information Report reveals that demand for return of dowry had been denied on number of occasions previous to the alleged incident. There was no occasion for the accused party to go at the house of the complainant after such a long litigation between the parties particularly when as alleged in the First Information Report they had defiantly refused to deliver back the Istridhan inspite of numerous Panchayats held earlier. The allegation to this effect seems to be a sheer conection.

From the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that the allegations in the First Information Report are not specific in nature for the offences in question and in the absence of the same, the prosecution shall not be able to improve upon its case even if a fullfledged trial is allowed to take place. I am aware of the fact that discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure for quashing the proceeding, at the initial stage, has to be exercised very cautiously and in very rare casess. But the case in hand is of such a nature that the prosecution cannot convincingly prove its case and would be a futile exercise on the part of the criminal Court to proceed in the matter against the present petitioners and it would amount to abuse of process of law.

While passing impugned order Annexure P2, the trial Court has dealt with the offences under Sections 406. 506 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and while dealing so, the trial Court has also gone into the point of territorial jurisdiction. As already observed, the First Information Report in question does not appear to be sufficient to call for a regular trial, as material incriminating allegations of specific nature, are hardly missing and as such, I need not go into this aspect of the case.

Accordingly, the First Information (Annexure P1) the impugned orders (Annexure P2 and P3), ordering and framing of the charges under Sections 406, 506 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are quashed against the petitioners only.