Jasvinder Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Jaswinder Singh, son of Tarlok Singh and others seeking the quashing of complaint Annexure P.1 titled ''Smt. Simarjit Kaur v. Jaswinder Singh and others'' under Sections 406, 498A, 34, 506, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They have also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P.2 whereby they have been summoned for their trial by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

The facts which have given rise to these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code lie in narrow compass:

Smt. Simarjit Kaur was married to Jaswinder Singh accused on 21.4.1991 at Karnal. Tarlok Singh is her fatherinlaw. Inder Kaur is her motherinlaw. Jaswant Singh, Darshan Singh and Sewa Singh are her brothersinlaw i.e. husband''s brothers. Smt. Gurdip Kaur is her jethani. Mohinder Kaur is her sisterinlaw i.e. sister of her husband. According to Smt. Simarjit Kaur, her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, brotherinlaw, jethani and husband constituted joint family sharing the same roof and are joint in mess and other family affairs. All of them are putting up in House No. 404, New Ram Nagar, Karnal. Although Smt. Mohinder Kaur is the married daughter of her fatherinlaw Tarlok Singh, she is frequent visitor to the house of her parents and is residing just adjacent to her parents'' house. At the time of shagun ceremony and also at the time of marriage her parents/friends/relatives gave adequate dowry to them in cash as well as in kind. Dowry given by her parents/friends/relatives to them was her stridhan. She attached annexures to the complaint in which the details of the articles of dowry given at the time of shagun ceremony and at the time of the marriage were given. Articles of dowry were packed in attache case, iron box and other packings. They were locked in the presence of the accused persons. Relations and friends of the parties were also present. Keys of the attache case, iron box and other packings were handed over to her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw in the presence of the aforesaid persons. List of articles given was also prepared which was handed over to her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw at the time of her marriage between her and Jaswinder Singh. Ever since marriage they were not satisfied with the dowry taken by her for them. Her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and others treated her with cruelty. They hurled taunts on her. They harassed her and tortured her so that she felt coerced to satisfy their lust for dowry. Her husband used to beat her at the instigation of his father, mother etc. She was maltreated. She was denied food, clothing, medicines etc. She was given blows with rod, stick etc. by her husband at the instigation of his father, mother etc. When she protested against the denial of food, clothing, medicines etc. to her, she was administered dettol solution by her husband together with his father, mother etc. She was saved by the timely intervention of her parents. Her parents sought intervention of Kewal Krishan, son of Hukam Rai, Amarjit Singh, son of Bal Singh and Gurdeep Singh etc. in September, 1991 and protested with the accused against the maltreatment being given to her by them. Accused blurted that in case she was interested in settling his daughter in the matrimonial home he should give Rs. one lac so that Jaswinder Singh could purchase a truck. They demanded VCR, air conditioner etc. They threatened that if their demand was not met she would be eliminated. Her father agreed to give them cash to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ so that his daughter could have happy and smooth life in the matrimonial home. With that object in view he gave Rs. 15,000/ to Jaswinder Singh in the presence of his father, mother etc. and also in the presence of members of the panchayat. After receiving an amount of Rs. 15,000/ all the accused assured them that they would not lay any demand in future and they would see that there was no discomfort to her in the matrimonial home and that she would be kept with respect, dignity and honour in the matrimonial home. A few days thereafter it proved to be vain hope that she would be treated with respect, dignity and honour in the matrimonial home and Jaswinder Singh with the connivance of his father, mother etc. again dwelt on beating and maltreating her. In June, 1992 she was thrown out of matrimonial home when she was in family way requiring medical care. Her entire jewellary, cash etc. was retained. They thus snatched the entire of her stridhan with intention to misappropriate it and to desert her. Her father''s effort to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home proved abortive as he was not able to fulfil their demands for one lac for the purchase of truck.

In support of their prayer for the quashment of the complaint and the order summoning them for trial they have averred that all the accused are residing separate holding separate ration cards and maintaining separate hearth and home. Complaint was sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to SHO, Police Station, City Karnal, where compromise took place. Smt. Simarjit Kaur did not stick to that compromise and stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that she would go ahead with the complaint. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order issuing search warrants under Section 93 of the Code for the recovery of the alleged articles of dowry. Jaswinder Singh etc. filed revision against that order and the operation of that order was stayed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Most of the articles which Smt. Simarjit Kaur says that they are her dowry belong to them, they are in possession of the receipts showing the purchase of articles by them. A daughter was born to Smt. Simarjit Kaur on 12.12.1992. She killed that child when that child was four days old with the motive to get rid of this alliance and remarry someone else. Jaswinder Singh filed complaint under Sections 302/304/317/506/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code against Simarjit Kaur and others on 15.1.1993. Smt. Simarjit Kaur is a hot headed woman. Her behaviour towards her husband was cruel. She wanted to usurp ornaments and other articles through the instrumentality of complaint Annexure P.1. In the complaint there is no mention as to which article was entrusted to which accused. Allegations as to entrustment are too general and vague in character. No complaint was ever made by her to the police or to any other authority as to the demand of dowry being made by them or their having ever beaten her.

Smt. Simarjit Kaur contested this prayer urging that at this stage the merits of the complaint cannot be gone into. It is for the magistrate to record evidence, evaluate it on the touchstone of probabilities and then decide. At the stage of summoning of the accused, the trial magistrate was only to see whether there was or there was no prima facie case against the accused if it were to be probed further. All the accused are putting up together. So far as Smt. Mohinder Kaur is concerned she is putting up in the adjacent house. All of them were one with each other so far as coercing her in fulfilling their demands were concerned or maltreating her. She lost her child after few days of its birth. They instituted complaint against her and others under Sections 302, 304, 317, 506, 34 and 120B IPC, which shows how magnanimously they are disposed of towards her.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned Advocate for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are putting up separate from each other in separate apartments of the same house and holding separate ration cards. In support of his submission he has drawn my attention to ration card No. 048800 which is shown to be held by Tarlok Singh and Inder Kaur as residents of House No. 5/1444M. He has drawn my attention to ration card No. 048488 which is shown to be held by Jaswant Singh, Pritam Kaur, Surjit Singh, Joginder Singh etc. They are family members of Jaswant Singh. He has drawn my attention to ration card No. 162343 which is held by Satnam Singh and Mohinder Kaur etc. They are shown to be residing in House No. 5/1444. He has drawn my attention to ration card No. 004275 which is held by Darshan Singh and his family. They are shown to be the residents of House No. 5/1444O. He has drawn my attention to ration card No. 004311 which is shown to be held by Jaswinder Singh and his family. They are shown to be the residents of House No. 5/1444P. Nothing can be said at this stage as to the merits of this submission. These ration cards show that they are putting up in separate apartments of the same house namely House No. 5/1444. Mohinder Kaur is the married daughter of Tarlok Singh putting up with her inlaws. It appears improbable that she keeps thronging the house of Jaswinder Singh all along and treats her sisterinlaw Simarjit Kaur with cruelty the object being to extract dowry out of her. Dowry brought would not benefit her. If dowry is brought by Smt. Simarjit Kaur that would benefit her, her husband and her inlaws through incidently.

Smt. Simarjit Kaur appears to have brought in the net almost every member of the family of her husband without specifying as to which article was entrusted to him/her so that he/she could be called upon to account for that article. Only allegation in the complaint is that article of dowry were put in an attache case, iron box and other packings and those were locked and the keys thereof were handed over to accused Tarlok Singh and Inder Kaur. On such vague and general allegations Smt. Simarjit Kaur could spread her tentacles to any extent. She could go to the extent of implicating even distant relations may be even mere baraties. It is not specified that key to any packing was handed over to the other accused. Dowry brought would have benefited her husband direct. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no surprise that Smt. Simarjit Kaur acted with ill will or spite while arraigning Jaswant Singh, Darshan Singh, Sewa Singh, Gurdip Kaur and Mohinder Kaur in the complaint when the dowry if brought could not benefit them at all. Dowry if brought would have constituted her property or the property at any rate of her husband.

It is generally seen that when any marriage goes in rough weather the tendency of bride is to insinuate as many members of the family of her husband as possible with the allegation of laying demand for dowry and also treating her with cruelty when their demand for dowry is not being fulfilled. Allegations of misappropriation of dowry are also made some times against those members of the family of the husband who do not have anything to do with the dowry which is the concern of the bride and bridegroom and at best parents of the bridegroom. While deciding the quashment proceedings concerning such prosecutions the Court has to visualise every such situation creeping in so that no one is harassed through the process of criminal trial.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to quash the complaint Annexure P.1 qua Jaswant Singh, Darshan Singh, Sewa Singh, Gurdip Kaur and Mohinder Kaur petitioners alone. It is accordingly quashed qua them alone. Summoning order Annexure P2 is also quashed qua them alone as the continuation of this complaint against them will be abuse of process of the Court. Complaint will proceed against the remaining accused.