Khinni and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed by Dayawati''s mother-in-law Khinni, sisters-in-law (Nanads), sister-in-law Guddi''s husband, maternal uncle-in-law and husband''s cousin, u/s 482, Cr.P.C. whereby they have sought the quashing of FIR No. 44 of 1995, registered at Police Station Bawani-Khera under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506, I.P.C.

For understanding the fact in proper perspective, the facts narrated by Dayawati are necessary to be given.

Dayawati, daughter of Prem Singh resident of Village Khanpur (Bohal), was married to Pawan Kumar son of Duli Chand about 11 years ago. Her parents had given dowry according to their financial capacity including scooter, fan, chair, table, utensils etc. She was given good treatment for about 4/5 years. After the death of her father-in-law, her husband Pawan Kumar, her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law Guddi and Amarvati started harassing her, saying that she had brought inadequate dowry. Her husband also started mal-treating her saying that she had not brought adequate dowry. She told her parents that she was being maltreated /harassed by her in-laws and they were not satisfied with the dowry which she had taken to them in marriage. Her parents came to Village Bohal and made entreaties to her in-laws that they were poor unable to meet their demand and they had already given dowry much beyond their means. They made entreaties to her in-laws to provide her room in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband Pawan Kumar asked her either to bring Rs. 10,000/- or a buffalo from her parents. She went to her parents and told them that her husband was demanding Rs. 10,000/-. Her father brought Rs. 10,000/- to Village Bohal. Amount of Rs. 10,000/- did not satisfy their lust for money. They did not stop mal-treating/ harassing her. Her father became afflicted with the grief on account of ill-treatment and mal-treatment which she was being put to by her in-laws and that grief became fatal to him. Smt. Dayawati bore three daughters but no son to her husband. One of the daughters died and the other two daughters are alive. Her in-laws were taunting her that she was unable to bear any son and as such they shut her in a room and forced her to undergo tubectomy. She did not agree to undergo tubectomy. About 8 months ago, she had been given beating by her mother-in-law, sisters-in- law, sister-in-law Guddi''s husband-Ramesh and maternal uncle-in-law and the aforesaid cousin of her husband, saying that she was not bringing dowry from her parents. The matter was got compromised by Panchayat of Village Khanpur, Bohal and her brothers Sube Singh and Dilbagh Singh. Thereafter, they did not stop ill-treating/harassing her. Her brothers made entreaties to them not to ill-treat her but to no effect and they threatened her and her brothers.

It is averred in this criminal petition by the petitioners that there is no specific detail of any ill-treatment attributed to any of them. The allegations with respect to Section 506, I.P.C., are vague. Smt. Khinni is aged. Petitioner No. 2 was married in 1977 and is putting up with her husband, who is serving in the army in Nagaland. Petitioner No. 3 is her youngest married sister-in-law putting up with her in-laws. She was married only one year ago. Petitioner No. 4 is husband of Guddi-sister-in-law, putting up in a separate village far away from the village of her husband. Petitioner No. 5 is her husband''s cousin residing in District Jhunjhaunu in Rajasthan. Petitioner No. 6 is aged maternal uncle of her husband residing in Village Kural, Teh. Loharu. There could be no question of petitioners'' ill-treating/ harassing Smt. Dayawati. They have been named in the FIR mala fide with a view to humiliate and pressurise her husband. The allegations are un-specific and vague so far as cruelty is concerned. No date/time is given. There is no mention of the manner in which she was subjected to cruelty. No offence u/s 498-A, I.P.C., is made out.

This petition has been contested by the respondents, urging that the challan has been put in and charge has been framed. If the petitioners feel aggrieved, they could knock the door of the Court of Sessions in revision u/s 397, Cr.P.C. There is no reason why there should be resort to the extra-ordinary remedy u/s 482, Cr.P.C. when ordinary remedy equally efficacious available u/s 397, Cr.P.C. has not been availed of by them.

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

In this case chailan has been put in and charge has been framed. It was held in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar 1994 (3) RCR 123 : (1994) 3 CCR 561 that if charges are framed in accordance with Section 240, Cr.P.C. on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out, as has been done in the instant case, person arraigned may if he feels aggrieved invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Court to contend that the charge-sheet submitted u/s 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the Revisional Court if so satisfied can quash charge(s) framed against him.

In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, , their Lordships of Hon''ble the Supreme Court observed that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, investigation cannot be permitted as any investigation in the absence of any offence being disclosed will result in unnecessary harassment of a party whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing."

It is only in exceptional and rare cases that this Court will interfere in a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. and exercise inherent powers vesting in it to quash a criminal prosecution at the threshold. This Court will exercise the inherent powers vesting in it u/s 482, Cr.P.C. and quash a criminal prosecution to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure ends of justice, when the remedy is not available under law. In this case, ordinary remedy which is equally efficacious is available under the law and has not been availed of or is not being availed of. Charge was framed by the Magistrate on 2.5.1996. If the ordinary remedy available u/s 397, Cr.P.C. is sought to be availed of no limitation will not stand in the way. If no revision is preferred, the Magistrate will be liberal in the exercise of his discretion in granting exemption from personal appearance to the petitioner(s), keeping in view that there should be prosecution and not persecution.

For the reasons given above, this criminal misc. petition fails and is dismissed. Nothing above is intended to prejudice the case of either party on merits.