Kulwant Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—Kulwant Singh and five others have filed the present petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. praying for the quashment of FIR No. 394 dated 17.7.1998, registered u/s 406/498-A, IPC, in Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, at the instance of Rajbir Kaur, respondent No. 2, who submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala, and levelled the following allegations :

"1. That the applicant belongs to a respectable family and she is employed as Steno in the District Court, Kurukshetra.

That the marriage of applicant was solemnised with Bharpoor Singh on 25.1.1998. Sh. Bharpoor Singh is the husband, Kulwant Singh is father- in-law, Smt. Shindo is the mother-in-law, Saravjeet Singh is thebrother- in-law, Narinder Kaur is the sister-in-law and Harinder Singh is the brother-in-law i.e. husband of Narinder Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur is also sister-in-law of the applicant.

That in the marriage, the father of the applicant has spent about Rs. 3 lakhs in marriage as well as in the engagement ceremony.

That the engagement ceremony was solemnised on 24.1.1998 and the parents of the applicant gave one Kara weighing 2 and half tolas of gold to Sh. Bharpoor Singh and one golden ring to his father Kulwant Singh and one Loi (Blanket) were given to all the brothers of Bharpoor Singh numbering three and blankets were also given to the brother-in-law of Bharpoor Singh namely Harinder Singh, Bharpoor Singh and Manohar Singh. One fridge of capacity of 165 Its. was also given at the time engagement. Costly ladies suits were given at the time of engagement to the mother of Bharpoor Singh, to his sisters and his brother''s wife. In this way, Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent in the engagement ceremony.

That at the time of marriage on 25.1.1998 golden ear-rings weighing about 10 gms. were given to Smt. Shindo, mother of Bharpoor Singh alongwith five costly suits of the latest designs. One wrist watch was given to Bharpoor Singh, husband of the applicant. Golden ear-rings were also given to Kuldeep Kaur and Narinder Kaur each who were the sisters of Bharpoor Singh. Golden ear-rings also were given to the Bhabi of Bharpoor Singh namely Kamaljeet Kaur and Jaswant Kaur. One suit each was given to all the sisters and sister-in-laws of Bharpoor Singh. 11 totals of gold were given to the applicant as one set of gold weighing 5 tolas, 2 golden ring weighing 2 tolas and 4 bangles of gold weighing about 4 tolas as Rs. 20,000/- more given in cash in place of T.V. at their house. The other utensils, clothes, Double-bed, one Sofa-set, Centre table, Dressing Table were given to the members of family of Bharpoor Singh. In this way, the father of the applicant spent more than Rs. 2 lakhs rupees at the time of marriage and one lakh of rupees at the time of engagement.

That all the accused namely Bharpoor Singh, Kulwant Singh, Smt. Shindo, Saravjeet Singh, Narinder Kaur, Harinder Singh and Kuldeep Kaur are the relations of Bharpoor Singh, husband of the applicant. They all started taunting the applicant and subjected the applicant with such a cruelty and made her impossible to stay in the house as they were not satisfied with the said dowry immediately after the marriage. The husband and father-in-law Kulwant Singh, her mother-in-law Shindo, Saravjeet Singh, brother, Narinder Kaur and Kuldeep Kaur, his sisters and Harinder Singh, brother-in-law (Jeeja) started demand the Motor- cycle from the complainant. The applicant told these facts to her parents. The parents of the applicant arranged Rs. 30,000/- and handed over the same to Kulwant Singh in the presence of all the accused. The father of the applicant also requested them not to harass the applicant in future as he is a poor farmer. There is a great burden upon him and he has got four daughters and one son only. After 15 days, the husband of the applicant in the presence of all the accused. The applicant showed her inability to bring more dowry from her father as the applicant is working as Steno. On first of every month, the mother-in-law of the applicant used to collect whole of the salary from the applicant. The applicant was not allowed to use any of the artilces given in the dowry by her parents.

That in the month of March, 1998 all the accused started that she should bring Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing of Maruti Car. The applicant showed her inability as a result of which she was beaten mercilessly by all the seven accused. The applicant came to her parental house and narrated her story. The father of the applicant namely Ajaib Singh convened a Panchayat and went to the house of Bharpoor Singh alongwith Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh (cousin brothers of applicant). They requested the accused persons not to harass the applicant as they are not in a position to pay Rs. 2 lakhs but all these accused did not agree to the genuine request of the Panchayat. This Panchayat was taken by her parents on 22.3.1998. Ultimately, the applicant was turned out from her matrimonial home (the applicant was turned out from house on 23.3.1998) just in three wearing clothes.

That the dowry articles were entrusted to seven accused at the time of marriage and engagement and the value of all the property was more than Rs. 3 lakhs and all the accused dishonestly misappropriated the property/Stridhan of the applicant and dishonestly used that property in violation of any direction of law prescribed in the model in which such test is to be discharged as the applicant was legally wedded wife of Sh. Bharpoor Singh, accused and it was employed that such dowry articles will be used by the applicant and all the accused wilfully committed the criminal breach of trust and they have wilfully caused to suffer the loss by the applicant.

That the applicant was mentally and physically tortured by the accused mentioned above and openly threatened the applicant not to enter their house without the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

That in this way, all the accused harassed the applicant with a view to coercing her as being the relatives of her husband and compelled her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry i.e. a valuable security and on account of failure by her for bringing more dowry from her parents to meet their demands. The appellant met with such cruelty that some- times she was driven in such a position to commit suicide and all the accused gave such injury to the applicant which was dangerous to her life and that cruelty was in the way of mental and physical torture. List of the dowry articles will be supplied later on the demand of Investigating Officer.

You are therefore requested to register a case against the above said accused persons under Sections 406/498-A, IPC, so that they may be punished according to law in the interest of law, justice and equity."

The petitioners are seeking quashment of the FIR on the grounds that there are no specific allegations against them; that they have no concern or interest in the demand of dowry as they are living separately; that the FIR has been got registered by the complainant in order to harass the innocent persons by allegedly false allegations; that if all the allegations are taken on its face value, even then, no offence u/s 406/498-A, IPC, is made out; that the articles regarding which the mention has been made in the application of respondent No. 2, are gifts and not dowry articles; that the marriage between the husband and wife is still subsisting and, in these circumstances, the offence u/s 406, IPC, is not, prima facie, made out.

3.1 have heard Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioners and after hearing his submissions, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition should be disposed of in limine and at the motion stage even without issuing notice to the respondents and that the same deserves to be dismissed.

It has been repeatedly laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the remedy u/s 482, Cr.P.C, is an exceptional one and the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C., are supposed to be invoked in rarest of rare cases. It is also the settled law that there should not be any quashment of the FIR once the FIR discloses a specific offence and while assessing the petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. filed in the High Court, only the allegations are required to be seen. Also, it is the settled position of law that the High Court is not supposed to embark on an inquiry and moreover when the investigation is still going on, the High Court cannot quash the FIR. The inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to its whims or caprice. Moreover, the powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C, cannot and should not be invoked when the matter is specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. If the petitioners, ultimately, are going to be charge-sheeted under the substantive offence allegedly committed by them, they can argue the matter before the Magistrate who is always competent to discharge the accused from the trial.

In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1991(1) RCR 383 : AIR 1992 SC 694 the Supreme Court had laid down that the powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Supreme Court has also given the guidelines numbering (1) to (7) and stated that if the petitioner can bring out his case under any of the exceptions enumerated below, the High Court will certainly interfere while exercising the powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. The said exceptions read as follows :

"1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other mate- rials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permit- ted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously institued with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

The case of the petitioners, now shall be examined in the light of the above settled principle of law.

Rajbir Kaur had categorically stated with regard to the entrustment of the dowry articles as well as with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty. There are specific allegations discernible about the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. Defences are not supposed to be seen at this stage unless those defences thoroughly cut the roots of the prosecution case. None of the contentions urged by the Counsel for the petitioners lead me to the conclusion that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 was mala fide affair or that it was an abuse of process of Court. The articles which were given to the petitioner or their companions were in the shape of Istridhan. There were allegations of specific entrustment which have not been accounted for. The reading of Section 405, IPC, would show that there was entrustment to the petitioners with regard to the dowry articles and those dowry articles have not been accounted for on demand. It is not the law of the land that there should be a dissolution of marriage between the spouses before the provisions of Section 406, IPC, can be invoked. The citation which has been relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner, 1982 Punjab and Haryana (Full Bench) 372, is distinguish- able on facts.

Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this petition and dismiss the same in limine.