Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal Misc. Petition No. 11858M of 1996 filed by Mohinder Singh etc. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby they have sought the quashing of FIR No. 65 of 20.2.1996 under Sections 406/498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P1). It is averred that Smt. Bhupinder Kaurrespondent was married to Balbir Singh on 9.10.1994 at Yamunanagar. Mohinder Singhpetitioner No. 1, Smt. Harbans Kaurpetitioner No. 2, Kuljit Singhpetitioner No. 3 and Smt. Tejinder Kaurpetitioner No. 4, are father, mother, brother and sisterinlaw (i.e. jethani) of Bhupinder Kaurrespondent No. 2 respectively.

Before coming to this prayer of Mohinder Singh etc. for the quashing of FIR No. 65 dated 29.2.1996 ibid, it would be useful to briefly advert to the facts recited in that FIR. According to Bhupinder Kaur her parents spent a lot on her marriage with Balbir Singh. They spent even beyond their means. Despite the dowry having been given beyond the reach of her parents, they could not satisfy their lust for dowry. From the first day of marriage, her husband, his father, mother, brother, brother''s wife i.e. (her jethani) and sister began taunting her saying that her parents had not given adequate dowry. They began asking her to bring adequate dowry and also the scooter on her visit to her parents. On her visit to her parents, Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, narrated them how she was being harassed/taunted by her inlaws. Her husband, fatherinlaw and jethani came to Yamunanagar and reiterated their demand for scooter. At the time when they reiterated their demand for scooter, Jasbir Singh son of Sh. Ram Singh r/o Bhatia Nagar, Yamunanagar and Nirmal Singh r/o 1/238 Chhoti line, Yamunanagar were present. Her parents told them that they were poor, unable to fulfil there demand. They requested them to grant them some time so that they could fulfil their demand. They also requested them to take her (Bhupinder Kaur) with them to the matrimonial home and they would give them scooter. Her husbandBalbir Singh, jethKuljeet Singh, fatherin lawMohinder Singh, motherinlawHarbans Kaur and jethaniTejinder Kaur took her with them and reiterated their demand. Her father told them that he was having Rs. 10,000/ with him and he could arrange the required money for the purchase of the scooter. At that time her husband was also there when demand for scooter was reiterated. They told her father that they would themselves purchase scooter and he should give them Rs. 10,000/ which he was having with him. Her father gave them Rs. 10,000/ so as to appease them and to secure happiness and comfort for his daughter in the matrimonial home. She returned to Dehradun. Their lust for dowry did not feel satisfied. They began beating her and keeping her starved. They asked her to bring Rs. 30,000/ from her parents so that they could start business. She expressed her inability to bring Rs. 30,000/ from her parents saying that they were poor unable to pay this huge amount. They gave her severe beating and tortured her. It became routine with them to keep her starved saying that they would keep her starved till she brought money from her parents. She wrote a letter to her parents apprising them of her pathetic tale and relentless demand for money being made by her inlaws. She telephoned them also apprising them of their inhuman treatment and demand of her inlaws for money. She did so without letting her inlaws know about this strategy being played by her. In July/August, 1995 she was pregnant. Her sisterinlaw Jasbir Kaur administered her injection though she was not doctor saying that injection administered by her will cure her weakness. She was becoming weak day by day. When Smt. Jasbir Kaur administered her injection, her jethani and motherinlaw caught hold of her. In October, 1996, all the accused gave her severe beating and threw her out of the matrimonial home in wearing apparel only and threatened that she would not have any place in the matrimonial home if she did not bring money from her parents or else they would kill her. She came to her parents with wearing apparel only on her in the vain hope that they would mend their behaviour towards her after the birth of the child. She gave birth to a daughter in Mago Hospital, Yamunagar. Expenses of the delivery were borne by her parents. Information was set to her inlaws regarding the birth of the daughter to her. None came to have look at the child or to present customary gifts to her. On or about 13.2.1996 her parents went to them to Dehradun. There also they misbehaved with her parents. They told her parents that they would come to Yamunanagar and settle the matter. On 15.6.1996 Balbir Singh, Kuljeet Singh, Mohinder Singh, Tejinder Kaur and Harbans Kaur (Accused Nos. 1 to 5) came to her parents'' house and told them that they would not keep Bhupinder Kaur in the matrimonial home nor would they return the articles of dowry. They threatened that if any action was initiated by them against them the whole of their family would be eliminated.

It is averred by Mohinder Singh etc. That right from the date of the marriage of Bhupinder Kaur with Balbir Singh they had been putting up separate from the at Delhi while they were putting up at Dehradun. Balbir Singh was conductor of a private bus at Delhi. He and his wife both were residing at Delhi. As such question of maltreatment of Bhupinder Kaur by them could not arise. Question of demanding dowry from her parents could not arise. From 1989 Balbir Singh was serving on daily wages with the Steel Authority of India. He served with them till October, 1990. Thereafter he was a conductor of private bus at Delhi. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur applied for being enlisted as a voter at Delhi on 3.4.1992 during the survey conducted by the election department. She submitted application form in writing for inclusion of her name and her husband''s name in the electoral roll. There is not even a remote reference of any maltreatment to her at Delhi by them. The petitioners are residing at Dehradun which she and her husband were residing at Delhi. FIR is vague inasmuch as she has given no date or time of any alleged incident of demand of dowry or incident of maltreatment. FIR lodged by them is mala fide intended only to harass them. Smt. Tejinder Kaur was married to Kuljeet Singh on 10.1.1986. They have all along been living separately from Bhupinder Kaur and her husband Balbir Singh at Dehradun. Kuljeet Singh had never raised any demand on his inlaws what to talk of raising demand on the inlaws of his brother Balbir Singh. There is no specific allegation of payment so far as Kuljeet Singh and his wife Tejinder Kaur are concerned. Kuljeet Singh and his wife have their own separate/independent life though they are putting up with his father Mohinder Singh and mother Harbans Kaur. The marriage of Jasbir Kaur sisterinlaw of Bhupinder Kaur i.e. ''Nanad'' was solemnized at Delhi on 15.10.1995. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and her parents attended that marriage quite happily. They appear in the snaps taken at the time of that marriage and these snaps show that they were happily participating in the marriage festivities. At the time of Jasbir Kaur''s marriage, Bhupinder Kaur was pregnant. Her father requested Balbir Singh''s parents to send Bhupinder Kaur with them for a few days to Yamunanagar as they were feeling lonely. They took Bhupinder Kaur with them. Bhupinder Kaur never returned to the matrimonial home thereafter nor she gave any reason for her withdrawal from the matrimonial home.

In nutshell the grievance of Mohinder Singh etc. is that Smt. Bhupinder Kaur implicated them quite falsely as she never stayed with them at Dehradun, she stayed all through with her husband at Delhi, where no question of mal treatment of Bhupinder Kaur by them could arise nor could the question of any demand by them from Bhupinder Singh Kaur arise.

The respondents opposed this petition urging that the case was investigated thoroughly and after investigation Jasbir Kaur alone was found innocent and challan was put in against all others which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. According to the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, it emerged that Bhupinder Kaur was putting up at Dehradun with her husband and the petitioners. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the petitioners and Balbir Singh at Dehradun and also at Yamunanagar where demand was made and cash and other articles of dowry were entrusted. At different occasions the petitioners visited the parents of Bhupinder Kaur at Yamunanagar and demanded cash and scooter. The payment of Rs. 10,000/ by Bhupinder Kaur''s parents did not satiate their lust for dowry.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, and learned Advocate for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record.

During the investigation of this case, the accused produced 46 items including gold ornaments (dowry articles) which were taken into possession by the police through recovery memo Annexure P9 (translated copy). This recovery memo was attested by Bhupinder Kaur''s father and one Jasbir Singh. After the seizure of 46 items, it can be said that if not all the articles of the dowry atleast some of the articles of dowry have been recovered. In the FIR there is no specific allegation as to which article was entrusted to which accused. Normally what happens is that the heavier articles of dowry are loaded in truck or some other vehicle and the light and costly items of dowry are put in the iron trunks or attache cases. These iron trunks or attache cases are entrusted to the care of some responsible member/members of the family who may happen to be brotherinlaw or fatherinlaw of the bride. Similarly, the truck or the vehicle loaded with heavy articles of dowry is entrusted to the care of some responsible member of the family of the bridegroom by the family of the bride. The dowry if brought by Bhupinder Kaur would not have benefited Kuljeet Singh and his wife Tejinder Kaur. The dowry if brought by Bhupinder Kaur would have benefited Mohinder Singh and his wife and that too incidentally. The dowry if brought would have enhanced status and esteem of Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur among the people of their community. In the FIR allegation is that in October, 1996 all the accused gave severe beating to Bhupinder Kaur. It was not mentioned by them whether she got herself medically examined and whether the injuries suffered by her were of grievous nature. It is thus a vague allegation that all the accused gave her beating in October, 1996 and threw her out of the matrimonial home. In this criminal misc. petition filed by Mohinder Singh there is no averment that Smt. Bhupinder Kaur had taken her dowry to Delhi where she was allegedly residing with her husband. Smt. Jasbir Kaur was married on 15.10.1995. In Dalip Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1995(3) All Instant Judgments 309, it was held that "where the brothers who had been putting up separate from their brother and his wife and their parents at different places, they had nothing to do with the alleged misappropriation of articles of dowry. Similarly, the married sisters who were putting up with their respective husbands had nothing to do with the dowry or demand for dowry. Complaint qua them should be quashed and was quashed qua the two brothers and two married sisters of the husband of the bride." No wonder, the grievance of Bhupinder Kaur against Tejinder Kaur and her husband is actuated by the feeling of jealousy that they are leading happy married life while her own marriage is on rocks. No wonder Smt. Tejinder Kaur and her husband are enjoying greater confidence of Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur and this kindled jealousy in the mind of Bhupinder Kaur. It would be conducive to equity and fair play this FIR is quashed qua Tejinder Kaur and her husband Kuljeet Singh. So this FIR qua them is quashed. Qua them this petition is accepted. Qua the remaining petitioners, this petition fails and is dismissed. Whatever has been said above is meant only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. It is not intended to prejudice either the case of the complainant Smt. Bhupinder Kaur or the petitioners at the trial. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary action.