Jasbir Kaur and Others vs Harjinder Kaur

Sabina, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) seeking quashing of complaint dated 7.11.1998 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) and entire proceedings taken thereunder pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana.

Harjinder Kaur-respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC. The case of the complainant/respondent was that she got married to Sikandar Singh on 23.3.1991. No child was born to them. Sikandar Singh was serving in the Army as a Sepoy and was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of her marriage. However, the petitioners in the present case harassed the complainant-respondent on account of inadequate dowry. Respondent-complainant was given severe beatings in March 1994 by Sikandar Singh under the influence of liquor and on 28.12.1994, she was left at her parental home. The efforts regarding re-conciliation proved futile.

The petitioners are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law (wife of brother of Sikandar Singh) and brother-in-law (brother of Sikandar Singh).

Sikandar Singh had filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (''the Act'' for short) on 24.4.1998. Respondent-complainant appeared in the said case and filed her written statement. The said petition was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 6.11.2000. The complaint in question was filed on 7.11.1998 (Annexure P-2). Respondent-complainant filed a petition u/s 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. A perusal of order dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure P-3) reveals that a compromise was effected between the parties and they had decided to live together in the matrimonial home and the petition was disposed of in terms of the compromise. Thereafter, the application for discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioners but the same is still pending.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.

In the present case, it appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the respondent and her husband Sikandar Singh. During the pendency of the present petition, Sikandar Singh has since died. Sikandar Singh and respondent were married in the year 1991 but no child was born to them. Sikandar Singh filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce. The said petition was dismissed on 6.11.2000. Apparently, the complaint in question was filed as a counter blast to the same on 7.11.1998 during the pendency of the said petition. Thereafter, the respondent moved a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in August, 2001. Respondent and Sikandar Singh agreed to live together in the matrimonial home and the petition was disposed of in terms of the re-conciliation effected between them. However, proceedings in the present complaint still continued.

Since the respondent has sought a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, it shows that there was only some matrimonial discord between the respondent and her husband Sikandar Singh. Apparently, with a view to settle score with Sikandar Singh, the respondent has filed the complaint in question involving him and his family members. The allegations levelled by the respondent in the complaint are mainly against Sikandar Singh. Moreover, from the facts of this case, it is evident that the complaint has been filed merely as a counter blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by Sikandar Singh. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 7.11.1998 under Sections 406/498-A (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua petitioners are quashed.