Nawandeep Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 133 dated 18.3.2009 u/s 406/ 498A/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Kotwali District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Rajshri Ben was married to Japmandeep Singh Ahluwalia on 20.8.2003 at London. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to them. At the time of marriage of the complainant, sufficient dowry had been given by her parents. However, the complainant was given beatings by her husband on account of insufficiency of dowry. Japamandeep Singh Ahluwalia raised a demand of more dowry from the complainant. On 9.12.2008, complainant went to Ahmedabad to visit her father. Japamandeep Singh Ahluwalia left her at Delhi Airport. Thereafter he had stopped all communications with her. Complainant received an e-mail from her husband asking her to give him divorce so that he could get married to another girl living at London and to enable him to go abroad. On 14.3.2009, complainant came to Patiala and found that the house of her husband was lying locked. That night she stayed at Gurudwara Sahib. On 15.3.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., she again went to her matrimonial home where her husband, his parents and the petitioner met her and raised a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-from her. The accused snatched gold/ diamond ornaments of the complainant and gave beatings to her. Japamandeep Singh Ahluwalia caught the complainant from her hair and tried to strangulate her. When she fell on the ground, her father-in-law and mother-in-law caught her from her legs and her husband tried to throttle her and raised a demand of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

None had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 21.8.2012 and the case was adjourned for today. Today again none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.

A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that general allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner was married to Jatinder Singh on 12.12.1998 and since then she is residing with her husband at Jalkheri District Fatehgarh Sahib. It appears that petitioner has been involved merely because of her relationship with the husband of the complainant. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband by the wife due to a matrimonial discord between them. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 133 dated 18.3.2009 u/s 406/ 498A/ 506 IPC registered at Kotwali District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed.