Jasbir Kaur and ors. vs Kamaljit Kaur

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The matter here concerns the complaint filed by the wife Kanwaljit Kaur against her husband Gurmit Singh, his parents brothers and sister under sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that at the time of her marriage, articles worth Rs. 40,000/ had been entrusted to them as dowry and that they had since been misappropriated by them.

In order to prove her allegations in the complaint, Kanwaljit Kaur, besides appearing the witness box herself also examined her father Kaka Singh and two other witnesses, namely; Ujagar Singh and Teja Singh. The trial Magistrate, finding a prima facie case against the husband and his relations summoned them to stand trial for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The present petition here is by the sister and brothers of the husband Gurmit Singh seeking the quashing of the complaint as also the order summoning them to stand trial.

A reference to the complaint would show that in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, there is only a general allegation to the effect that the articles of dowry were entrusted to them as also to the husband and his parents at the time of the marriage and that after the marriage, they had refused to hand them over to the wife and had thus committed criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is significant to note, however, that the complaint contains no specific allegations regarding the entrustment of any particular article of dowry to any particular person nor of any particular time and occasion when the return of such articles was demanded by the wife and refused to her.

Further, it will be seen that in this impugned order, summoning the petitioners as accused the trial magistrate has not adverted to any evidence specifically implicating any of the petitioners in respect of any particular article of dowry.

Such being the situation here, the dragging in of relations other than the husband and his parents, is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. In matters relating to return of dowry, there is an element of sympathy for the unfortunate wife, but this cannot, but stand dissipated when it is used as an occasion to unnecessarily harass and humiliate relations on the husband''s side not in any manner involved.

Counsel for the wife sought to contend that there can be no bar to a complaint being filed against the relations of the husband other than the husband and his parents. He cited in this behalf the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 539 : AIR 1985 Supreme Court 628 , where it was held that where the allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of stridhan properties was made out by the married woman, in her complaint and the allegations were clear, specific and unambiguous and all the facts, stated in the complaint constitute the offence under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the right to prove the case cannot be denied to the complainant.

It is applying this very test of Pratibha Rani''s case (supra), namely; that the allegations must be clear, specific and unambiguous that there can be no escape from the conclusion that there is no case for the petitioners to answer. Vague and general allegations of the type as made in the complaint, in this case, cannot justify or sustain the complaint or the order summoning the present petitioners, as accused in this case.

The complaint, as also the orders summoning the petitioners are accordingly hereby quashed and this petition is thus accepted.