Kamaljit Kaur @ Kamla Devi & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Anr.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 121 dated 10.06.2014,

under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code, registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana and

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

In brief, the facts are that complainant-Neel Kamal got married

with Sukhwinder Singh, son of petitioner No. 1, on 13.07.2005. Out of this

wedlock, a female child was born on 03.05.2006. A dispute arose between

the parties which led to her filing the complaint dated 21.04.2010 before the

Superintendent of Police, Panchkula. This matter was investigated in which

the DSP came to the conclusion that the dispute was between the husband

and wife and no role could be attributed to Kamaljit Kaur, mother-in-law of

the complainant, petitioner No. 1 herein. Thereafter, certain papers titled as

"Divorce Deed" were drawn up whereby complainant-Neel Kamal stated

that relationship between husband and wife was not good and that now she

gives divorce to her husband and has received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from

Kamla Devi, mother of the husband, as lifetime maintenance, alimony etc.

However, after the alleged papers were drawn up, complainant-Neel Kamal

filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging demand of dowry,

humiliation as well as forcibly keeping the minor daughter away from her.

On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered.

The petitioners herein, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the

complainant, have preferred this petition seeking quashing of the FIR in

question along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the petitioners

herein have been roped in without adequate reasons. In fact, the dispute, if

any, has arisen out of a matrimonial discord which is between son of

petitioner No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh and the complainant. It is also argued

that Sukhwinder Singh does not reside with them and in fact is a resident of

Canada as would be evident from the complaint itself. In the complaint, it

has been specifically mentioned that accused No. 1, namely Sukhwinder

Singh-husband, has gone to Canada. It is also argued that petitioner No. 1

herein had given a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant as would be

evident from Annexure P/6 which has been signed by the complainant in the

presence of other members of the society. It is also contended that petitioner

No. 2 is married sister-in-law who is residing separately for more than 18

years i. e. since the date of her marriage.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that

specific allegations have been made out in the complaint for demand of

dowry and beatings at the hands of the petitioners and, therefore, there is no

ground made out for interference by this Court in the proceedings initiated

under the FIR in question.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

perused the record of the case.

Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law of the

complainant aged about 67 years and petitioner No. 2 is the married sister-

in-law. A complaint had initially been filed by the complainant before the

Superintendent of Police, Panchkula which had duly been investigated into

and after investigation, an opinion had been formed that no offence is made

out against Kamaljit Kaur, petitioner No. 1 herein. It is only thereafter that

the FIR in question came to be registered. It is also not countered that the

complainant had received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The main allegation of

the complainant are that her husband Sukhwinder Singh had demanded a

sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents as he wanted to go to Dubai for

business and thereafter she was not called to Dubai. Again allegations are

made that Sukhwinder Singh came to India in the year 2008 and started

demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and gold articles as well as the passport of the

complainant. The complainant accepted the demand of her husband and

gave him Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and gold article, pursuant to which, he had

gone to Canada. In this regard, a receipt has been written on 09.05.2008

which is dully signed by the accused persons. After going to Canada,

Sukhwinder Singh never talked with the complainant nor did he call her to

Canada and she has come to know that he has solemnized second marriage

in Canada, out of which wedlock, he has two children. It was further alleged

that accused Nos. 2 and 3 knew that Sukhwinder Singh had solemnized the

second marriage in Canada and they spoiled the life of the complainant. The

accused persons also used to beat the complainant continuously and did not

give her meals and clothes. It has also been alleged that the petitioners had

thrown her out of the house and kept her daughter along with them and

threatened her that if she tried to take her daughter or tried to lodge any

complaint, they would do away with the life of the complainant.

The allegations regarding demand of dowry have been raised

primarily against the husband while stating that he had solemnized another

marriage in Canada. The allegations are general in nature qua the petitioners

and are not sustainable. There is no specific allegation or details made out in

the FIR to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC

against the petitioners. Moreover, petitioner No. 2 is the married sister-in-

law and again no specific allegations have been made against her. The

Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State

of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363 has observed as under :

"The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to

ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband''s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. "

Moreover, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner

herein has paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant as full and final

settlement as evident from the "Divorce Deed". It is also brought to the

notice of this Court that petitioner No. 1 is looking after the minor child

born out of the wedlock between the complainant and her son.

In view of above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 121

dated 10.06.2014, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 420, 506 and 120-B of

the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Pinjore, District

Panchkula, Haryana and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same

are quashed qua the petitioners herein.