Kali Ram vs Bimla Devi

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

Bimla Devi has alleged in her complaint, on the basis of which the two petitioners along with Naresh Kumar, husband of the complainant were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat that her marriage was solemnised with accused No. 1 Naresh Kumar (who is not the petitioner in this application) on March 22, 1986 at Village Alupur, Tehsil Panipat District Karnal according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, that her parents and relatives gave various, ornaments and other articles in gift as stridhan to the complainant and entrusted the same (ornaments and articles) to the accused at the time of marriage at Village Alupur, Tehsil Panipat The accused were not happy with the dowry and they started demanding more dowry from the complainant and her parents. However the complainant lived with her husband thrice in Village Pinana, Tehsil and District Sonepat and tried to maintain peace and harmony in her marital life, but the accused did not mend their ways and they demanded more and more dowry and money from her parents. She has further stated in her complaint that accused No. 1 Naresh Kumar wrote a letter to the complainant''s parents and demanded Rs. 10,000/. This demand was fulfilled by the father of the complainant who gave Rs. 10,000/ to accused No. 1. Even thereafter the accused did not change their behaviour with the complainant. On the other hand, accused Nos. 2 and 3 tried to have illicit relations with the complainant about which the complainant informed her husband i.e. accused No. 1 through a letter who came at Village Alupur in October, 1987. It is further stated by her that instead of apologising for misbehaviour of his father with the complainant, he asked the complainant that she will have to live with his father and brother as they liked and insulted the complainant and her parents and refused to return the stridhan. In this way, she stated that the accused are dishonestly misappropriating the stridhan of the complainant for their own use and benefit. The petitioners Kali Ram and Ved Parkash son of Kali Ram have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by Bimla Devi, under sections 405/406/498B, Indian Penal Code, and the summoning order, dated August 16, 1988 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that no offence whatsoever is made out from the contents of the complaint, Annexure P1, as the complainant has nowhere levelled any specific allegation of entrustment of any alleged dowry articles to the petitioners and no allegations have been made in the complaint against any particular accused, much less the petitioners as to how and by whom she had been maltreated. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the marriage of Bimla Devi witt Naresh Kumar was solemnised on March 22, 1986 and petitioner No. 2 Ved Parkash was minor at that time. As such, he could not have been entrusted with any of the alleged dowry articles

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that It has been alleged in the complaint that at the time of the marriage, the parents and relatives of the complainant gave various ornaments and other articles in gift as stridhan to the complainant and entrusted the same (ornaments and articles) to the accused there at Village Alupur, Tehsil Panipat. He further argues that all the accused had insulted complainant and her parents and refused to return the stridhan. Thus the complaint as well as the summoning order are not liable to be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the complaint Annexure PA has been filed by Bimla Devi herself and she has not specifically stated therein as to whom the articles of dowry at the time of marriage were entrusted except alleging as under :

"...At the time of their marriage the parents and relatives of the complainant gave various ornaments and entrusted the same (ornaments and articles) to the accused at the time of marriage at Village Alupur, Teshil Panipat Distt. Karnal."

It is not shown from the complaint as to when, where and to whom the demand for returning of articles of dowry was made. It is simply said in the complaint that the accused insulted the complainant and her parents and refused to return the stridhan. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served if these proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners before the trial Court because the inherent infirmity regarding the vagueness of these allegations against the present petitioners in the complaint cannot be cured by the witnesses in their testimony at the trial. It is the consistent view of this Court that such like vague allegations are not sufficient to allow the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the accused. The decision of this Court in Krishan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1990(3) Recent C.R. 183. can safely be referred to in this regard.

As it is shown from the complaint that the complainant Bimla Devi has got some grievance of misbehaviour towards her by the brother and the father of her husband, for that purpose she can choose different forum to move against them for their alleged misbehaviour, if so advised.

For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed. The complaint Annexure 1 and the summoning order, dated August 16, 1988, of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat, are quashed qua the petitoners Kali Ram and Ved Parkash.