Lomash Rishi vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing first information report Annexure P/1 registered against them and resultant investigation against them under section 406, 498A and 506 IPC, the same being abuse of process of the Court.

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was married to Smt. Sneh Lata in month of May, 1990. The relations between the husband and wife did not remain cordial and Sneh Lata lodged a report against the petitioners at police station Mohali, District Ropar on 6121991 on the allegations that at the time of her marriage her father spent money according to his status but her inlaws who were greedy persons started maltreating her for not bringing refrigerator, scooter and T.V. etc. She was compelled to bring cash from her parents and was subjected to beating. Once her father arranged Rs. 10,000/ and gave to her husband and his father Mohan Lal to run a `Dhaba'', but in August 1990 she was again given beating by her sisterinlaw Raj Rani, Nirmal and Sunita and motherinlaw Krishna. Her motherinlaw brought a vessel of kerosene oil and the sisters of her husband set her on fire after sprinkling the oil. Petitioner No. 1 gave her kicks in her stomach. In order to save her life she went to her parents house.

The petitioners alleged that in fact Sneh Lata had gone to her parents'' house on August 6, 1990 on the pretext of tying `Rakhi'' to her brothers and thereafter she did not return. Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 26111991 and the first information report was lodged by Sneh Lata subsequently at the instigation of her parents. It was further alleged that no offence under section 406, 498A and 506 IPC was made out on the basis of the allegation made in the first information report. The allegations were false and the case against the petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The complainant left the house of the petitioners in the month of August, 1990 and the matter was reported to the Police on 6121991 i.e. after a period of 1 year and 5 moths.

In the return filed by the respondent it was pleaded that petitioner No. 1 was a drug addict and consumed liquor regularly. He demanded Rs. 10,000/ from his wife for running a `Dhaba'' at Mohali and father of the complainant give him Rs. 5000/ twice. The petitioners demanded colour T.V., fridge and scooter. Father of the complainant was not in a position to fulfil the demands of the petitioners. The petitioner feeling annoyed gave beating to the complainant on 1181990 with shoes and lathis and petitioners No. 1 and 2 kicked in the abdomen of the complainant knowing that she was pregnant. Petitioner No. 2 i.e. father of petitioner No. 1 brought a can of kerosene oil and instigated petitioners No. 4 to sprinkle kerosene and set the complainant ablase. The complainant ran to her parents'' house to save her life. She suffered internal injuries and had to be hospitalised. The allegations made in the first information report made out a prima facie case against the petitioners.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Main contention of the petitioners was that a perusal of the first information report Annexure P/1 revealed that no offence under Sections 406, 498A and 506 IPC was made out against the petitioners. There was a simple allegation in the first information report that at the time of marriage father of the complainant spent sufficient amount and this allegation did not spell out the ingredients of Section 406 IPC. It was nowhere mentioned as to what articles of dowry were given and to whom the same were entrusted. There is absolutely no averments before the police that the dowry articles entrusted to the petitioners were ever demanded from them and they refused to return or they had misappropriated the same to their own use. This court has taken a consistent view that the allegation to make out a prima facie case under Sections 406, 498A IPC should be specific in nature against each and every accused. General allegations of entrustment, refusal to return dowry articles and general allegations of cruelty in terms of section 498A IPC have been deprecated. If clear and specific allegations are not made out against a particular accused, no case against him is made out. In the instant case there is hardly any allegation of entrustment of any dowry article to any of the petitioner nor it is mentioned that the articles were demanded from the petitioners but they refused to return the same and dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use. No case is, thus, made out under section 406 IPC.

As regards section 498A IPC the allegations again are vague, inspecific and indefinite. No time or date of the occurrence is given. It was contended that in the month of August, 1990 motherinlaw of the complainant brought a vessel of kerosene oil and sisters of petitioner No. 1 set the complainant on fire after sprinkling the oil. But this incident was never reported to any one for 1 1/2 years. In the return filed by the respondent it was contended that it was the fatherinlaw of the complainant who brought a cane of kerosene oil and instigated his daughters to set the complainant ablaze. It was nowhere mentioned in the first information report that the complainant suffered internal injury and remained admitted in the hospital. In the absence of definite date, time and place at which the alleged act of cruelty was performed it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence were spelled out. In the case of Parmod Kumar Oberoi and others v. Radha Rani, 1991(1) CLR 524 where it was alleged that the complainant was maltreated in order to coerce her to bring more dowry, it was held that such general allegations did not even prima facie constitute the alleged offence and criminal proceedings on the basis of such complaint a mounted to abuse of process of Court and were liable to be quashed.

As regards the offence under section 506 IPC there is absolutely no allegation in the impugned first information report that any of the petitioner issued any threat to the complainant to cause injury to her person, reputation or property. If any threat had been issued to her then she would not have waited for 1 1/2 years to report the matter to the police. The allegations in the impugned FIR seem totally assured and inherently improbable. It appears that after petitioner No. 1 filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights the complainant lodged this report with the police as a counterblast. Since the allegations made in FIR Annexure P/1 are not specific and definite and no offence is made out, the proceedings on the basis of the same will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the first information report Annexure P/1 as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.