Maninder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—Prayer made in the present petition by the petitioners is for quashing the FIR No. 23 dated 02.05.2005 registered u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code at police station Purana Shalla District Gurdaspur. Stating briefly the facts are that this case has been registered against the four petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 2 Maninder Kaur, who was married to one Mandeep Singh on 13.02.2000. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are mother and father of said Mandeep Singh. Thus, they are mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 is sister of Mandeep Singh and petitioner No. 1 is her husband. Thus they are sister and brother-in-law of the husband of respondent No. 2.

This marriage got into trouble soon after the date of marriage. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against her husband Mandeep Singh in the month of November 2000 on the basis of which, an FIR No. 117 dated 01.11.2000 was registered. Mandeep Singh and his mother, the accused-persons in the case were arrested. The dowry articles were recovered and accused were challaned. After trial Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur convicted Mandeep Singh and his mother Avtar Kaur ( petitioner No. 3 ) on 16.01.2002 and thereafter released them on probation. This order has been annexed with the present petition and perusal of the same shows that a compromise was effected between the husband and complainant Maninder Kaur ( respondent No. 2 ). Now after a lapse of more than three years, another FIR has been got registered by respondent No. 2 and present proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. On the basis of this FIR, petitioners No. 3 and 4, who are stated to be 70 and 75 years old respectively, were arrested. The allegations are that they were being forced by the police to pay Rs. 7.5 lacs for compromising the case. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 however, were granted interim bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. It is also disclosed in the petition that husband of the complainant namely Mandip Singh has already gone abroad in the year 2003 and since then the complainant is living with her parents in village Purana Shalla. Giving this background, it has been urged that the present complaint has been fabricated by giving false details with vague allegations. It is averred that no date of any alleged cruelty has been disclosed in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. Copy of the FIR has been annexed as Annexure P2 with the petition. A prayer in the petition is for quashing the FIR.

Perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant has mentioned that the articles, which had been got recovered by the police during the earlier criminal proceedings, were returned to the petitioners after compromise on a promise that they would be kept for exclusive use of the complainant. It is claimed that this was done to see that the complainant was settled in the matrimonial house. It is also stated that the gold ornaments and jewelry taken on superdari, were entrusted to Mandip Singh, Trilochan Kaur and Maninder Singh. It is further disclosed that the utensils and unstitched suits were entrusted to Smt. Avtar Kaur. It is then claimed that Maninder Singh and Trilochan Kaur had assured the respectables and panchayat that the complainant would not be tortured by putting illegal demands. This was statedly done on 17.01.2002 after the decision of the case on 16.01.2002. As per the complainant, the behavior of the accused remained good towards her for about six months and then they again started harassing and torturing her mentally. Demand of dowry of Rs. 2.00 lacs along with Zen Car were raised by the accused as per the allegations. It has been disclosed by the complainant that she was left with her parents by Mandeep Singh, her husband on 04.04.2003 by saying that he would take her back only in case the demand of cash and Car was met. From the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the complaint is staying with her parents since 04.04.2003. It is also clear that she could only stay with the petitioners from 17.1.2002 to 04.04.2003. As such all the instances of cruelty and demand of dowry could be between this period only. She has now not made any allegations against her husband Mandip Singh, who had allegedly left her at her parent''s house with the demand of dowry. Obviously she is aware that she will not be in a position to prosecute the allegations against her husband, who had admittedly gone abroad in the year 2003.

The averments in the petition that respondent No. 2 had gone to her parents voluntarily after Mandip Singh had gone abroad apparently are true. The present FIR has been registered u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code after lapse of over two years from the date, if any of the allegations. . The earlier FIR got registered led to conviction of husband and mother-in-law ( Petitioner No. 3 ). There has been total lull between April 2003 to May 2005 when the storm in the form of present FIR has appeared. Return of the dowry articles etc. as alleged in the FIR apparently have been made only to support the allegations in the present FIR. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are living separately at Kapurthala and are married since 1983 have also been roped in. The husband now is not available for being proceeded against. It will sound strange that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and so also petitioner No. 4 who were not blamed in any manner in the previous FIR recorded on 01.11.2000 would now raise a demand of dowry or otherwise act with cruelty against the respondent wife. The earlier FIR was only against Mandip Singh, husband and Smt. Avtar Kaur, petitioner No. 3. It can reasonable be assumed that if the present petitioners had acted with cruelty to respondent No. 2, she was bound to complain against them and would not have kept silent for over two years from 04.04.2003 to 02.05.2005 before registering the present FIR. There is also substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR is totally vague and also does not reveal any allegation of cruelty. Further submission is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have just been involved without any justification. It has simply been mentioned in the FIR that gold ornaments and jewelry mentioned in the application of superdari, were entrusted to accused Mandip Singh, Trilochan Kaur ( Petitioner No. 2 ) and Maninder Singh ( Petitioner No. 1 ). The other allegations made against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are that they had assured the respectables and panchayat that the respondents will not be tortured by raising demand of dowry. Petitioner No. 2 and 1 being married sister and brother-in-law respectively have no reason to demand dowry or to accept the jewelry and the gold ornaments specially so when the husband Mandeep Singh was present and had also been statedly entrusted with jewelry. This clearly shows that the allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are apparently made up beside being vague. Even otherwise it is noticeable that the fact that the complainant had already successfully prosecuted her husband and mother-in-law leading to their conviction was enough to scare them from repeating the demand of dowry. Allegations in the FIR have come after a lapse of period of over two years without any specific date of demand etc.

It would indicate that these have been made without much basis. Viewing the conduct of complainant in successfully prosecuting her earlier complaint, she cannot be expected to keep quite for such a long period for registering a case if indeed there had been any act of cruelty on the part of the petitioners. It appears that the respondent wants to get even with the petitioner as her husband has gone abroad forcing her to stay with her parents. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are old and infirm and are resident of New Delhi. Would they be interested in dowry and raise demand especially in the absence of their son who is husband of respondent No. 2? The facts and circumstances of this case do give an indication that the present proceedings have been instituted for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners and are with a view to spite them due to a personal grudge. These proceedings can not be termed bona fide. Rather the case would disclose that the complaint in this case is vexatious and oppressive and also appears to be frivolous.

There is no allegation of demand of dowry or other act of cruelty attributed to the petitioner No. 1 and 2. The allegation of demand of dowry made against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are vague where no date, month and year is mentioned in the complaint, then it can be termed as vague.

Having regard to all these facts it appears that allowing the present proceedings on the basis of the impugned FIR to continue would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. To ensure that ends of justice and otherwise to avoid the abuse of process of the Court, the present FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising there from, are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed.