Kumari Saroj @ Mona vs Meenakshi

K.S. Kumaran, J.—The petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.l0248-M of 1993 are respondents 4, 5, 6, 2 and 3 respectively in the complaint (Annexure P-l) filed by the respondent herein; on 2:12.1992 before the judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar. The petitioner in Cr. Mist. No. 14531-M-1993 is the first respondent in the said complaint. The petitioners-have filed these two petitions u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said complaint under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also the summoning order dated 12.6.1993 (Annexure P-2) of the said Judicial Magistrate. Since both these petitions relate to the same complaint and the summoning order I am considering and disposing them of by this common order, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as complainant and the respondents as they are arrayed before the Judicial Magistrate.

In the complaint (Annexure P-1) before the learned Magistrate, the complainant is the wife, the first-respondent is her husband, the second and third-respondents are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, the respondents 4 and 5 are her two unmarried sisters-in-law, while the 6th respondent is her brother-in-law.

The complainant has alleged in the complaint as follows :

Her marriage with the first respondent Sanjiv Kumar was performed on 13.12.1990 at Abohar. At that time, her parents had given sufficient dowry as detailed in Annexure-A to the complaint. On 13.12.1990 after the marriage ceremony, the complainant in the persence of certain persons, who had attended the marriage, entrusted certain articles of dowry to the respondents. Respondents 1 to 6 were not happy about the dowry and mal-treated her and teased her with oral remarks. The respondents started beating her daily and pressurised her to bring Rs. 50,000/-. Her brother gave her Rs. 10,000/-, which she handed over to the respondents 1 to 6, and inspite of it, the respondents were not satisfied and threatened that she should bring Rs. 40,000/- more. On 20.4.1991 Ved Prakash (father-in-law) gave her some pills, which she took believing them, but those pills ultimately turned out to be poison. She was locked in a house by respondents 1 to 6 and threatened that she should give it in writing that she had consumed poison on her own. All the respondents pressurised her to bring more money from her father for constructing . a house for her husband and when she expressed the inability of her father to do so, she was beaten and driven out of the house on 24.6.1991 by all the respondents. On 1.11.1991, she alongwith her father and Ors. met the respondents and demanded back the articles entrusted to them and that all the respondents refused to do so. She had to give in writing to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, in November, 1991 and on 2.4.1992. There was a Panchayat on 6.4.1992 and the matter was compromised between her on the one hand, and her husband Sanjeev Kumar and father-in-law Ved Prakash, on the other, after, which she started living with her husband. But on the night intervening 16/17.4.1992, the respondents asked her to leave the home and took the wrist watch and ornaments back and locked them in an almirah. When she asked her husband to return the watch, she was slapped by him. The other respondents gave beating to her with sticks and tried to strangulate her. She then came to the house of her father and was examined at Civil Hospital, Abohar on 18.4.1992. On 24.4.1992 she moved a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. There was a Panchayat in which a compromise was effected between the complainant and her husband. At that time, she was given some of her golden articles. On 24.6.1992, she and her husband went to Ferozepur and resided there. On 4.7.1992 they shifted to Bathinda. But, the other respondents kept on visiting their house at Ferozepur and at Bathinda and always taunted her for bringing less dowry. On 26.9.1992 at 8.30 a.m., her husband asked her for the keys of the bank locker and on refusal, locked her inside the room and started giving beatings. She escaped and gave a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and after enquiry, a lady police got her some articles back from the husband of the complainant on 5.11.1992. On 8.11.1992, the complainant went and met her husband at their residence at Abohar and demanded all the articles entrusted to them, but the same was not complied with. The respondents have misappropriated the articles entrusted to them and have committed physical and mental cruelty upon her.

The learned Magistrate has, in his summoning order, observed that the version of the complainant has been reiterated by the complainant as PW1 and has been corroborated by the statements of PWs 2 to 4, and held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly summoned the respondents.

The respondents before the Magistrate, who are petitioners herein, have alleged in their petition that the mother-in-law of the complainant did not even attend the marriage of her son, according to the custom prevalent in their family. They claim that it is the petitioner-wife who has no respect either for her husband or for her parents-in-law, and that soon after the marriage, the wife started quarrelling with the husband and in-laws over trifles and even gave false police complaints time and again. According to the respondents, there were police enquiries and Panchayats. A compromise was effected on 22.4.1992. The respondents claim that after the compromise between the couple on 6.4.1992 and 22.4.92, the wife shifted to Ferozepur alongwith her husband and carried away in truck all the luggage, and that from there the couple shifted to Bathinda on 4.7.1992. According to the respondents whatever articls of dowry which the wife got, she had collected them except a few articles which she had left at the house of her-in-laws under her own lock and key. According to these respondents, these articles are not in the custody of any of them and they have no objection if the complainant/wife takes them away. The respondents claim that even after shifting to Ferozepur and then to Bathinda, the complainant/wife made complaints to the police, which were found to be false by the police after enquiry. The respondents claim that during this enquiry, various articles received by her have been admitted by her as is seen from the receipts signed by her on 23.10.1992 and 5.11.1992. It is also claimed that the police have found the allegations made by the complainant are not true. The husband approached Mahila Suraksha Samiti for compromise and the said Samiti wrote letters calling the wife and her parents, but the petitioner did not turn up. The respondents also claim that on 7.10.1992, the wife took away all the ornaments and cash from the joint locker in UCO Bank, Bathinda.

According to the respondents, the complaint is an abuse of process of Court. The respondents contend that while the mother-in-law did not attend the marriage and, therefore, there was no question of her receiving the dowry articles and that the sisters-in-law of the complainant being unmarried girls, there was no question of these girls receiving any dowry articles. The brother-in-law of the complainant, according to the respondents, was married much before and has been living separately at Sirsa and so, the allegations of misappropriation and ill- treatment against him are false.

The complainant-petitioner filed a reply only to Cr. Misc. 10248-M/1993 stating that admittedly some of the articles are still in the possession of the respondents, that the mother-in-law did accompany the Barat at the time of the marriage, that she was beaten up by her husband and his other family members, that the articles mentioned in Annexure R-l are still in the possession of the respondents, that as she was mercilessly beaten by her husband she had given a report to the police, and the respondents have managed the reports in their favour in connivance with the police, and that the family of the brother-in-law is residing at Abohar and comes off and on to that place.

In these circumstances, I have to find out whether the complaint against the respondents and the summoning order of the Magistrate have to be quashed. I will first deal with the alleged entrustment of dowry articles to as also the alleged misappropriation by the respondents.

The first contention of the respondent is that the mother-in-law was not at all present at the time of the marriage ceremony according to the custom in the family and, therefore, there was no entrustment of any of the articles to her. But the complainant has specifically mentioned in the complaint that her mother-in-law was also present and that certain items were entrusted to her. In view of the specific allegation in the complaint, the question will still be whether in spite of such a custom alleged the mother-in-law was present at the time of marriage and had received any article of dowry. Both sides have produced certain photographs in support of their respective contention and it is not necessary for me in these proceedings u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to examine them in detail. Suffice it for me to say that in view of the allegations in the complaint there is a prima facie case against the mother-in-law to be summoned u/s 406, Cr.P.C, as has been done by the Magistrate.

So far as the two sisters-in-law of the complainant are concerned it is contended by the respondents that they are unmarried girls, and when elders like father-in-law and others had attended the marriage, it is improbable that some dowry articles could have been entrusted to such girls. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Parkask Kaur v. Kulwant Kaur 1992 (1) RCR 348. But even in this decision it was held that in view of the presence of the mother of the bridegroom, his brothers and sisters are not usually expected to accept stridhan unless special circumstances are disclosed or it is averred that some brother or sister of the husband was entrusted with such articles. In the present case it has been specifically averred in the complaint that certain items were entrusted to the sisters-in-law. So far as the brother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the complainant are also concerned, there are specific allegations of entrustment. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the articles have been taken away by the complainant/petitioner. But the complainant has alleged that there are some articles with the respondents and that on 8.11.1992, she went to the house of her husband at Abohar and demanded the articles but they refused to return them. In the reply filed to Cr. Misc. 10248-M of 1993, the complainant has stated that the articles mentioned in Annexure Rl are still with them. In Annexure R1, certain articles have been mentioned to be in the custody of Ved Prakash, the father-in-law, in a room in the house which is under the lock and key of the complainant. There is also reference to certain ornaments about which the husband is stated to have undertaken the responsibility to compensate.

From these facts and also from the fact that the brother-in-law Pritpal Singh (as admitted in the complaint itself) is living separately at Sirsa, it can be seen that though some articles were allegedly entrusted to him, none of the articles could be with the brother-in-law of the complainant, namely Pritpal Singh. It will be absurd to say that he carried the articles allegedly entrusted to him to his house at Sirsa. In fact, there is no such allegation against him. Admittedly, Ex. R-l says that the articles are in the house of Ved Prakash at Abohar. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no prima facie case is made out against Pritpal Singh u/s 406, Indian Penal Code.

Though, serveral contentions have been raised by the respondents about certain complaints, enquiries, compromise, and also about the complainant/ petitioner taking certain goods including those in the locker of a bank, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out against all the respondents, except the brother-in-law Pritpal Singh to be summoned u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The officer made in this petition that the complainant can always take the goods cannot absolve them from liability to be proceeded against u/s 406, IPC.

So far as the cruelty attributed to the respondents is concerned, it is seen from the complaint that the petitioner/complainant has alleged that she was ill- treated by all the respondents from the beginning. But the allegations against others than her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are vague. The complainant has alleged that the father-in-law and mother-in-law gave her some pills, which turned out to be poison, and has also attributed acts of cruelty to her husband. But though the complainant/petitioner has stated that the all the respondents ill-treated her and that she was beaten by all the respondents, other than her husband, with a stick and that they tried to strangulate her, it is noteworthy there is no certificate from any doctor to prima facie show that she had sustained any injury in the alleged maltreatment, in spite of the fact that the complainant has stated that she was medically examined by a doctor at Civil Hospital, Abohar on 18.4.1992. It is also seen from the allegations in the complaint that the complainant and her husband had started living separately at Ferozepur and then at Bathinda while the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant lived at Abohar and while the brother-in-law of the complainant lived at Sirsa. The complainant, in order to rope in all the members of the family, has simply stated that the family of the brother- in-law is residing at Abohar and comes off and on to the place, and that her sisters- in-law/brother-in-law and parents-in-law kept on visiting the residence at Ferozepur and Bathinda and taunted her for bringing less dowry. No specific dates are given as to when they have done so. Therefore, when the other respondents have been living separately from the complainant and her husband at a different place altogether, I am of the view that these allegations have been made only with a view to rope in the other respondents (other than her parents-in-law and husband) also for punishment u/s 498-A, IPC. I am of the view that it is only against the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant there is a prima facie case to summon them u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Taking into consideration all these factors. I find that there is a prima facie case against the husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant for being summoned u/s 406, IPC. I also find that there is a prima facie case against the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant to be summoned u/s 498-A, IPC.

In the result, Cr. Misc. 10248-M/1993 is allowed in part. The complaint (Anhexure P1) and the summoning order (Annexure P-2) of the learned Magistrate, Abohar, in so far as 3rd petitioner namely Pritpal Singh, u/s 406, IPC are quashed. The complaint and the summoning order u/s 498-A, IPC are quashed in respect of the petitioners No. 1 to 3, namely Saroj, Madhu and Pritpal Singh. In other respects, the petition is dismissed.