Mehar Chand and ors. vs Roshani

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Mehar Chand and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint (Annexure P1) summoning order dated 2141992 (AnnexureP2) and further proceedings in pursuance thereof, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar District Ferozepur.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Roshni respondent was married to Mehar Chand, petitioner about two years prior to the filing of the complaint (Annexure P1) a sum of Rs. 70,000/ was spent on her marriage and she was given all the necessary articles of dowry The petitioners were, however not satisfied with the dowry and often taunted her and she was also subjected to beating by the petitioners, Roop Ram, Samitra. Rani, wife of Roop Ram as well as by Lachhmi sister of Mehar Chand. The respondent out of fear visited her father and brought Rs. 10,000/ twice for the petitioners. The petitioners were still not satisfied and treated her in a cruel, manner. On the death of her mother which took place tea months prior to the filing of the complaint, she was asked to bring all the ornaments of her mother and not to return till she complied with the wishes of the petitioners. The respondent did not agree to bring the ornaments, at which she was again subjected to beating. Fifteen days prior to the filing of the complaint she was given beating and was administered insecticide, when she became unconscious she was taken to a private doctor and thereafter, she was illegally detained. When her parents learnt about her illegal detention, her father got her released with the help of the police of Police Station, Chuyan Sarwar. The petitioners treated the respondent with such cruelty that she thought Of committing suicide. On these allegations, I complaint, (Annexure P1) was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and after recording preliminary evidence the trial Court passed order (Annexure P2), whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial for an offence under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners assailed the complaint and impugned order on the ground that the allegations made out in the complaint did not disclose any offence. There was no specific allegation as to how the petitioners jointly made demand for more dowry. It was also, not mentioned as to when the amount of Rs. 10,000/ was paid to the petitioners. In fact the respondent wanted that her husband Mehar Chand should reside at her parental house and when be refused to do so a false complaint was filed to harass him and his other relatives. It was further averred that the trial court did not property apply its mind on the allegations forming basis of the complaint and no material on record was referred, to find out whether a prima facie case was made out for proceeding" against the petitioners under Section 4987A of the Indian Penal Code. The order (Annexure P2) was a nonspeaking order and the petitioners were being put to trial for an offence for which no foundation has been laid down in the complaint itself.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondent but she did not accept service.

I have heard Mr. R.L. Aneja, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

It was arged on behalf of the petitioners that th allegations made in the complainant are vague and ambiguous and it was not specifically averred as to which of the petitioners treated the respondent in a cruel manner so as to compel her to bring more dowry. Unless there were specific and definite allegations against the petitioners regarding the harassment of the respondent with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property, it could not be said that any offence was prima facie made out. I find this contention of the learned Counsel is valid and it is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge sheet do not constitute any offence, the High Court is competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence but then each case is to be determined on its individual facts. A perusal of the complaint, Annexure P1 will sow that the allegations levelled in the complaint are not vague or indefinite and rather the same are exact and definite so as to make out a prima facie case for commission of an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners. The respondent has averred that from the very beginning the petitioners were aggrieved on account of inadequate dowry and she was often subjected to beating. To satisfy their demand she brought Rs. 10,000/ twice from her father. The petitioners were still not satisfied and there was no change in their behaviour. She has specifically mentioned that ten months earlier to the filing of the complaint her mothers died and then all the petitioners asked her to leave the house and not to return till she brought ornaments of her mother. She has again asserted that fifteen days before the institution of the complaint she was beaten and was administered insecticide by the petitioners and when this fact was known to the residents of the village, she was taken to some private doctor from treatment. She was also illegally detained by the petitioners and was recovered with the help of the Police of Police Station, Khuyan Sarwar. The allegations, if taken as correct, disclose the commission of an offence by the husband and relatives of the husband and they were rightly summoned to stand trial for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any merit in this petition and dismissed the same.