Niranjan Singh vs Kulwant Kaur

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Respondent No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 is the brother of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurdaspur against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned J.M.I.C took cognizance of the case, issued process u/s 498-A against the petitioners for the offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said order of taking of cognizance by the learned J.M.I.C. the present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the same.

I have heard Mr. G.S. Grewal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N.K. Banka, learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1 respectively and have gone through the record of the case.

Mr. Grewal, learned Senior Counsel argued that petitioner No. 2 had filed a divorce petition against respondent No. 1 on l4.6.1994 and civil suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/- on 5.12.1994. He has argued that the complaint has been filed by respondent No. Ion 2.2.1995 only on account of counter-blast against the civil proceeding mentioned above and that there are no specific allegations in the complaint that there is no demand and also there is no entrustment of any dowry artkle to anybody even as per complaint. He has also argued that no specific instance has been mentioned in the complaint to invite the issuance of process against the petitioners. He has also argued that petitioner No. 2 has also filed a complaint u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 1.

A perusal of the complaint Annexure P/1 shows that it cannot be said that it is without any allegation. It is mentioned in the complaint that various valuable articles were given at the time of marriage and that the petitioners did not feel satisfied with the same and started taunting the-respondent No.l that the mother and brother of respondent No. 1 had not kept up their promise to give dowry articles as promised. She has also mentioned that after 4/5 months of the marriage, the petitioners started pressing the complainant-respondent No. 1 either to bring a car or cash amount for the purchase of the car because the dowry articles given to them were not to the tune of their status. It is also mentioned in the complaint that because respondent No. 1 did not move to the desired direction, all the petitioners started humiliating and beating the respondent to coerce her to yield to their demands. Ultimately, the mother and brother of respondent No. 1 promised to purchase a second hand Maruti car for the petitioners if they stopped humiliating and beating respondent No. 1 and requested for a time of (sic) months but the behaviour of the petitioners did not undergo any change and they kept thrashing and harassing the complainant regularly with the result of which the respondent got affected her eye-sight and health adversely and she grew too weak to walk.

It is further contended that the petitioner No. 1 was the Personal Assistant to the Education Minister, Punjab and that the harassment took place in his presence and some time in his absence. It is specifically mentioned that all the petitioners used to detain the complainant without serving her food in the house.

It is contended that on 26.1.1995, a close relative of respondent No. 1 namely, Jaswant Singh alongwith Satnam Singh son of Milka Singh and driver Darshan Singh son of Dev Singh again went to the petitioner''s house with a view to request them to keep back and rehabilitate the complainant but the petitioners insulted them. It is also contended that when they were returning and came near the by-pass of Shri Hargobindpur, petitioner No. 1 armed with 315 bore rifle fired 3/4 fires at them. At that time petitioner No. 2 was armed with sten gun and was standing at the roof top of the house. A case regarding the said incident was registered vide F.I.R. No. 9 dated 27.1.1995 with the Police Station, Sri Hargobindpur. Therefore, from the reading of the complaint itself is not possible to hold that there is no specific allegation in the complaint against the petitioners or that there is no demand of dowry.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurdaspur has issued process for the offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code but no specific instance of cruelty has been alleged. Looking to the complaint itself, this argument cannot stand as the same goes to show that she is subjected to cruelty. The harassment and cruelty caused to a married woman cannot be confined to one instance only and if the harassment continues day to day, hour after hour, then the wife is justified in not quoting every separate instance in the complaint because it will be an impossible thing for her to do so. Non-stating to the details, such as date, time of the events may be of consideration for appreciating the evidence but when the allegations are made, this Court, at this stage, cannot go deep in the matter and to hold that no such allegations are made or that allegations made are not specific. This Court is not expected, at this stage, to appreciate the evidence as is done at the time or trial.

One of the arguments advanced by Mr. Grewal is that when (as per his argument) the offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from the complaint and the issue of process is only for the offence under that section, the complaint cannot proceed as there is no other offence for which it can proceed. This argument becomes academic as I have held that it cannot be held at this stage that the complaint does not contain any allegation against the petitioners which would amount to offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, as it is argued, it will be proper to see the allegations in the complaint regarding the other offence punishable u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the golden ornaments excepting earrings and finger rings and utensils were entrusted to petitioner No. 3-Jaswant Kaur whereas Rs. 40,000/-in cash was jointly entrusted to petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the purchase of bededings, furniture, T.V. and refrigerator etc. and all other articles i.e. clothes, electric fan, sewing machine, two domestic reared she-buffaloes were entrusted to petitioner No. 4.1 do not express any opinion whether a charge can or cannot be framed on the said allegations for the offence u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code, However, if at the time of framing charge, learned Judicial Magistrate I Class finds fit he can frame the charge for that offence also. In the case of Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that charge can be altered at appellate stage. If that is so,'' there is not bar in framing the charge for the offence u/s 406, IPC if it is made out from the prima facie evidence at the time of framing of the charge. Because of the above reasons, I do not find it proper to quash the complaint or the order passed in it. It will be proper, in order to do justice, that it should be allowed to be continued in the Trial Court. Moreover, the complaints of this nature should not be brushed aside and due regard is to be given to the position of women in our society. It will be unjust to the complainant to quash the proceedings when the above mentioned allegations are there in the complaint. Of course the Trial Court can frame a charge on the evidence led before it or can discharge the petitioners after recording evidence but that it can do at a stage and I do not find it proper to quash the complaint and the proceedings at this stage.

For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is dismissed.