Jasbir Kaur and Another and Joginder Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—By this common order, both Criminal Misc. No. 1871-M of 2004 and Criminal Misc. No. 41 799-M of 2004 shall be disposed of. Criminal Misc. No. 1871-M of 2004 has been instituted by Jasbir Kaur, elder sister of the husband of Kulwinder Kaur complainant and Manmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1. In common parlance, petitioner No. 1 is Nanad and petitioner No. 2 is Nandoi of the complainant. Criminal Misc. No. 41799-M of 2004 has been preferred by Joginder Singh, father-in-law and Harjit Kaur, mother-in-law of Kulwinder Kaur complainant.

It is stated that Joginder Singh petitioner has died during the pendency of the present petition. A peculiar feature of this case is that husband of the complainant Jagjit Singh died on 26th April, 2004 after registration of the FIR. In both the petitions, quashing of FIR No. 174 dated 02.12.2003 registered at Police Station Ramdas, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar u/s 406/498-A/120-B IPC has been sought.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that Kulwinder Kaur was married with Jagjit Singh, brother of Jasbir Kaur petitioner and son of Harjit Kaur petitioner on 7th December, 2000 at Ajnala. It is stated that the dowry articles were entrusted to the family members. It is further stated in the FIR that husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were not good towards the complainant and they used to taunt her in connivance with each other and were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents of the complainant. It is further stated that mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to lock the complainant in a room and had not provided food to her. Another grievance made is that the husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law used to take liquor together and instigated Jagjit Singh to beat the complainant. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there is no specific allegation against Manmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh and the only allegation leveled against Jasbir Kaur is that she along with her mother used to confine the complainant in a room and denied her food.

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that in matrimonial matters there is a tendency prevailing in these days to enlarge the number of accused and the complainant has also acted in the same fashion. It is stated that the marriage of petitioner Jasbir Kaur with Manmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh was solemnized in year 1995, whereas, the marriage of the complainant Kulwinder Kaur was solemnized in year 2000. At the time of registration of the FIR, petitioner Jasbir Kaur and Manmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh were having two children aged six years and two years respectively and they were residing at a different place. They had nothing to gain from the demand of dowry made by Jagjit Singh, Joginder Singh and Harjit Kaur. Furthermore, in the present case, husband of the complainant has died. He was a common link between the petitioners and the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon Neelu Chopra and Anr. v. Bharti 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 115 to contend that the present FIR should not continue, as the same is an abuse of process of law after the death of husband. However, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that in that case there was no specific allegation against each accused.

Therefore, taking the whole conspectus of the case into consideration, Criminal Misc. No. 1871-M of 2004 is accepted and the proceedings launched by the complainant against Jasbir Kaur and Manmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh are hereby quashed.

However, there are specific allegations against Harjit Kaur mother-in-law. It is stated that she is an old lady. In these circumstances, personal appearance of Harjit Kaur petitioner, before the trial Court is exempted, subject to her filing an undertaking that she shall cause her appearance as and when required by the trial Court. She shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel, shall be binding upon her. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. Counsel for the petitioners at this stage has submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the petition filed by Harjit Kaur, as any observation made by this Court may not stand in her way and she be granted liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.

The prayer made by counsel for the petitioners is accepted. Accordingly, as prayed, Criminal Misc. No. 41799-M of 2004 is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid.