Nanak Chand and ors. vs State of Haryana and anr..

J. S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

The accused petitioners, who'' happen to be parents, mother, sister and brother''s wife, of the husband of Mst. Sunita Rani respondent, have filed this petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the first information report for offences under sections 406, 109 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and the resultant proceedings therefrom.

The resume of facts relevantly for the disposal of this petition figures in F.I.R. (Annexure P1) registered on the written complaint of Mst. Sunita Rani It reads :

"F.I.R. No. 167 dated 3131990 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa Smt. Sunita Rani wife of Shri Manohar Lal. daughter of Sh. Sohan Lal,. resident of Gali Choprawali, House No. 1242, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

..... Complainant.

Versus

Manohar Lal son the Shri Nanak Chand r/o Gali Dhobianwali, Sirsa; 2. Nanak Chand son of Shri Ami Chand 3. Raj Rani wife of Nanak Chand; 4. Subhash Chand son of Shri Nanak Chand; 5. Surinder son of Shri Nanak Chand 6. Sushma wife of Shri Surender Kumar son of Nanak Ghand; 7. Prem son of Shri Nanak Chand : 8. Babal daughter of Shri Nanak Chand, resident of Gali Dhobianwali, Sira; Tehsil and District Sirsa.

Accused.

Complaint under sections 406, 109 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Sir.

The complainant respectfully submits as under :

That the accused No. 1 Shri Manohar Lal is the husband of the complainant Sunita Rani, accused No. 2 and 3 are the fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of the complainant, accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are the teal brothers of the accused No. 1 and accused No. 6 is wife of accused No. 5 and accused No. 8 is the real sister of the accused No. 1.

That the marriage between the complainant and the accused 2 was solmnised on 12.7 S9 at Teh. & Dist. Sirsa, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies of the parties. The parents of the complainant at the time of marriage gave sufficient dowry and some of the articles were given by the relations of the complainant as a matter of dowry. Some details of the dowry items are given below :

(i) One Refrigerator valuing about Rs. 6500/ was given at the time of engagement.

(ii) Cash amount of Rs. 1100/ which was put in the `Thali'' at the time of engagement ceremony and approximately an amount of 1500/ were given in cash at the time of engagement by different relations, friends who were collected at the time of engagement, and the fruits, sweets, clothes etc. of the value of about Rs. 2000/ were given at the time of engagement ceremony.

(iii) Articles given at the time of `Chuni ceremony'' : Rs. 500/ cash amount and clothes given to the mother, sister, father of the accused No. 1 of the value of Rs. 1000/ About Rs. 500/ were given by the relations collected there and the sweets/fruits etc. given of the value of about Rs. 80/.

(iv) Articles given at the time of marriage : Chaddars, daries, rajais, kambal, etc. and about 100 utensils of pital, brass, steel etc. were given worth Rs. 7,000/

(a) One big iron box (petti) of the value of about Rs. 800/ one wrist watch of the value of Rs. 500/ were given.

(b) Clothes of the value of Rs. 25,000/ were given to the accused No. 1 and to the father, mother, sister, brother and other close relations.

(c) An amount of Rs. 13,000/ approximately was given in cash besides the fruit and sweets of the value of about Rs. 1000/.

(d) An amount of Rs. 27,000/ was given by way of FDR dated 11.7.1989.

(e) Gold ornaments which include Paijeb, Ring, Kanta, Karra, Chutki, Haars etc. etc. weighting about 9 tolas

(f) An amount of Rs. 30,000/ was incurred on account of dinner, tea, sweets, for lunch ''and breakfast, including tent expenses.

(g) Articles given at the time of `phera'' ceremony for first time after marriage (in the house of accused)

Cash amount of Rs. 151/, fruits/sweets of the value of Rs. 500/ and clothes of the value of Rs. 500/

(h) Articles given at the time of phera ceremony for first time in the house of the parents of the complainant :

Clothes of the value of about Rs. 2000/ given to the accused No. 1 and his father, mother brothers and the sweets/fruits etc. of the value of Rs. 500/

(i) Articles given after the marriage when the parents of the complainant came to meet the complainant in her in laws :

One clock, cash amount of Rs. 4000/, sweets/fruits etc. of the value of Rs. 200/

(j) Articles given to the complainant at the time of Raarkh'' Bandhan ceremony :

One Godrej Almirah and cash amount of Rs. 200/ besides the fruits/sweets etc. of the value of Rs. 150/

Besides the abovesaid articles, cash amount etc. the accused were given cash amount, and other articles from time to time after marriage on different occasions.

That, so much so, before the marriage the father of Manohar Lal accused forced the complainant''s father to deposit a sum of Re 40,000/ in the shape of fixed deposit or give the said sum in cash, but ultimately an amount of Rs. 27,000/ were deposited in the name of Sunita Devi by the father of the complainant.

That the accused have outsted the complainant froth the house about. 11/2 months ago as a result of cruel treatment and the aforesaid articles were kept with the accused and they were not allowed to be used by the complainant and the same are in possession of the accused persons. The complainant has been deserted since 11/2 months ago by the accused persons and consequently she is living with her poor parents since then. The aforesaid articles are the Istridhan of the complainant and the accused persons have no right or title over the same and they have no right to use the same and that the complainant has a legal right to use the said articles.

That the complainant asked and requested the accused persons time and again to return the aforesaid articles of the complainant which are meant for the complainant alone but they refused to do so. The accused have thus misappropriated the aforesaid articles, intentionally and malafidely which articles are the istridhan of the complainant. In view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court ruling reported in AIR 1985 page 628 Parstibha Rani and other. the aforesaid articles are the Istridhan of the complainant and the absolute property of the complainant. The accused have no right whatsoever to misappropriate the same and thus under these circumstances, the aforesaid accused persons have committed offence under Section 406 read with section 109/498A of the Indian Penal Code, as the accused persons have converted these articles to their own use which is the Istridhan and the absolute property of the complainant.

That the aforesaid articles were entrusted to the accused persons by the parents of the relations of the complainant.

That this Hon''ble Court has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint because the complainant is residing at Sirsa., Tehsil and District Sirsa in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court,

That the court fee as required under the law is paid to the complainant. Hence, in the view of the above attending circumstance, it is prayed that the accused persons may please be summoned under the afore saidoffences and the accused persons be punished according to law and the justice may be done with the complainant. . "

The learned counsel for the'' petitioners contends that the FIR and the entire proceedings should be quashed on the ground of vagueness of allegations qua entrustment and refusal to return Istridhan of Mst. Sunita Rani It is further maintained that the allegations qua maltreatment are vague as no time of occurrence or manner in which she was maltreated figure in the complaint. It is further maintained that the articles given by way of gifts to the relations of the husband would not form Part of Istridhan of Mst. Sunita Rani. 41

The learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the private respondent, on the other hand, maintain that the articles forming part of Istridhan of the wife are usually entrusted to the parentsinlaw and other relations at the time of marriage and thus the entrustment should be presumed. It is further stressed that the accused were residing jointly at the time of the marriage and they were doing so till 11/2 months of the marriage when Mst. Sunita Rani was turned out after maltreatment.

A bare glance at the FIR (Exhibit P1) reproduced above leaves no doubt that there is no specific averment qua the entrustment of the property forming part of Istridhan of Mst. Sunita Rani to any of the accused. It is conceded by Mr. Goripuria at the bar that no supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded during investigation of the case in order to pinpoint the entrustment of the property or details of the maltreatment qua any of the accused. It is also conceded that Sohan Lal father of the complainant in his statement recorded during investigation had not at all improved upon The version given by the complainant in the FIR keeping in view that on the occasion of the engagement ceremony and marriage etc. the Istridhan is entrusted to the elderly persons of the family i. e. the parents of the brideroom, the vagueness of the allegations qua entrustment of the property to Subhash Chand Surinder, Prem Sudarshna, brothers and sister of the husband and Mst Sushma wife of the brother of the husband are not sufficient even if believed to make them exfacie liable for offence under section06 of the Indian Penal Code. However the case of the parents of the husband of the complainant as already discussed stands on a different footing as in. their case rebuttable presumption of entrustment of Istridhan is available.

The allegations contained in the FIR qua the giving of gifts by way of hard cash and clothes to the relations of the husband on the occasion of Chunni ceremony, marriage and other ceremonies are of no consequence because those gifts are given personally to the relations for their use. and not entrusted to them for the use of the bride or the complainant.

The allegations regarding cruelty figure in para 4 of the complaint wherein complainant had simply averred that about 11/2 months ago she was turned out without any articles by the accused from her matrimonial house after cruel treatment. She has failed to state the manner of such cruel treatment what to say of disclosing as to whether she was physically maltreated or mentally tortured. Thus, under these circumstances none of the accused petitioners would be liable for offence under section 498A, IPC even if her entire version as contained in the FIR is believed

Consequently. for the reasons recorded above, the prosecution of Subbasb Chandcr, Surinder, Sushma, Prem and Sudarshna, Petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 for the above referred offences, is quashed by accepting this petition in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the criminal court. However, no case is made out to interfere in the prosecution of Nanak Chand and Raj Rani petitioners for offence under section 406 IPC as they are parents of the husband. However, the prosecution for offence under section 498A IPC stands quashed. The observations of this Court would not hamper the trial Court in appraising the evidence while framing the charge or conducting trial against the remaining accused. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.