Kamaljeet vs Shyam lal and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—Petitioner-Appellant has filed the instant petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Complaint case No. 197 -I of 1998 decided on 30.3.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A and 506 Indian Penal Code.

Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is wrong and illegal. The material evidence has been brushed aside on flimsy grounds. Further, a great prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner-Appellant whereas there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction.

Record of the learned trial court was send for. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant.

In short, the allegations for which the Respondents faced trial can be summed-up thus. The Appellant-Petitioner was married to Respondent Shyam lal on 15.2.1995 in District Ropar (Punjab). His wife (Kamaljeet Petitioner) alleged cruelty against her. After the marriage on 23.10.1995, she gave birth to a male child named Amandeep. Her husband was a liquor addict. He and other family members started harassing her for dowry. His parents used to instigate him to kill her. In the month of November, 1996, her brother went to Chandigarh to see her and noticed swollen finger and injuries on her body. He narrated the entire fact to her father. Next day, they visited her and a meeting was fixed at Nangal. Her husband, even in their presence proclaimed that he would not stop beating her. Thus, she was not sent to her matrimonial house by her parents. On 23.2.1997, her husband along with his Respondent mother visited her parental house from where the Petitioner-Appellant was dragged and her father-in-law kicked her. In December, 1997 her husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights which ended in compromise on 30.4.1998, she joined the company of her husband in the matrimonial house. Even thereafter her husband insisted upon her to fetch money to invest in his business. In the month of August, 1998 she was sent to her parental house during Rakshabandhan. On 25.8.1998 Respondent came to her parental house and asked her to arrange an amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. When she expressed her inability so to do, they proclaimed to join the matrimonial home only if she could arrange the said amount. It was also alleged that her dowry articles, given at the time of marriage, were kept by the Respondents and were not returned.

After framing the charge, Petitioner examined her witnesses and at the end of trial Respondents were acquitted precisely, on the ground that she failed to prove the demand of money or any aspersion on her character, as alleged. The letter Ext. CA was not proved to be in the hand of any of the Respondents. No witness of the locality was examined to lend strength to her version. Further, petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by her husband, later he had also filed the petition for divorce on the allegations of cruelty against his wife Respondent No. 1 and also for desertion which was decreed on 16.5.2002 (Ext. D-1 and D-2). The judgment and decree aforesaid were assailed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, now pending decision and also that the complainant-wife failed to prove the entrustment and misappropriation of the dowry articles.

The complaint contains the general allegations of cruelty. The perusal of the statement of the complainant-wife also reveals the general allegations about ''cruelty''. She did not say that she was being maltreated for satisfying the demand of the dowry. According to her, the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - was demanded by Respondent No. 1 for his business, which does not fall within the definition of demand of dowry.

The perusal of the judgment and decree of divorce Ext. D1 and D2 reveals that the counter- claim regarding allegations of cruelty, as alleged by the complainant-wife was not proved. There was also no allegations with respect to the demand of Rs. 20,000/ - and misappropriation of dowry articles. The learned District Judge held that the complainant-wife was not generally obeying his request and she used to pick-up quarrel with him and his family members unnecessarily, even threatened them that she would commit suicide if she was asked to do any house-hold work. Even after the delivery of the male child, her behaviour did not change and she left the company of her husband in November, 1996 along with valuable articles and that was the reason for filing a petition by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights which was compromised. He withdrew his petition. The husband resided separately from her parents due to act and conduct of his wife. Even thereafter her hostility did not lessen. She started insulting her husband. With respect to beating etc. no complaint was filed by her and the learned District Judge while observing the above facts held that she had treated her husband with cruelty. Thus dissolved the marriage through a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. When examined in the court, she did not give any detail of the dowry articles kept and misappropriated by the Respondents. She admitted previous litigation with Respondents for restitution of conjugal rights and divorce. Even PW-3 Harbans Lal uncle of the Petitioner-Appellant could not improve her case. CW-4 Rom Dutt though stated having gone to the Panchyat but stated that no money was ever demanded by her husband. CW-5 Ashok Kumar her brother made allegations about giving beating to her in the year 1996 by the Respondent, thereafter in the year 1997 in her parental house and stated about demanding Rs. 20,000/ -. In cross-examination he stated that no complaint with respect to the alleged beating or cruelty was ever made to the Police. In cross-examination of Sagli Ram conducted on 22.5.2009 he did not say anything about the alleged beatings. He was also a witness of the complainant in the divorce petition.

On the close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, I do not find it a case falling within the purview and ambit of Sections 498A and 506 Indian Penal Code. Further, the entrustment of the dowry articles has also not been proved nor in the divorce petition any application was moved for its return. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, acquittal of the Respondents cannot be interfered with. Hence leave to appeal is rejected.

Cr.A. No. 134/2010.

In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal the present appeal has become infructuous.