Parkash Kaur and ors. vs Kulwant Kaur

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

Mst. Parkash Kaur mother, Balvinder Singh, Surjit Singh brothers and Mst. Gian Kaur sister besides Mst. Paramjit Kaur and Mst. Ravinder Kaur wives of the brothers of Sukhdev Singh, husband of Mst. Kulwant Kaur complainant have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P11 and the summoning order Annexure P 2 to face trial for an offence. under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition figures in compliant Annexure P I which reads as under :

"That the complainant was married with accused No. 1 about 5 years ago at Ludhiana according to Anand Karaj ceremonies. That the accused No. 1 is the husband. accused No. 2 is motherinlaw, accused Nos. 3, 5 brothers, accused Nos. 4 and 6 are sisters inlaw (Bharjais), accused No. 7, 11 and 13 are sisters, accused No. 8 is Fufar, accused Nos. 9 is Bhua, accused Nos. 10 and 12 are brothersinlaw respectively of the complainant. Accused above mentioned actively participated in the marriage of complainant with accused No. 1 and raised constant demands of dowry.

That the father and relations of the complainant gave dowry to the complainant in her marriage beyond their reach. The list of dowry articles entrusted to the accused in the presence of the marriage processionists and relations of the complainant party by the father of the complainant amounting to more than Rs. 60,000/ and were given as trust to be given back to the complainant when she reached in the house of her inlaws. All the accused bore testimony to the receipt of dowry articles from the father of the complainant which were duly taken into posession by the accused persons. From the very outset. the accused persons started treating the complainant shabbily and demanded inexplicable dowry in cash and other valuable articles. They boldly uttered that the complainant has not brought sufficient dowry to their expectations.

That the accused No. 1 turned deaf cars to the requests ''of the complainant to let her live peacefully in her inlaws and she was kicked several times. A futile attempt was also made on the life of the complainant. The complainant was also persistently forced to take liquor as all the other women folks in the family of her inlaws used to indulge in taking heavy country made liquor and she was compelled to support their illegal activities to which she never consented. The complainant tried her level best to set them right but all in vain. All efforts for her, rehabilitation have proved fruitless and since 731984 she is living separately with her parents at their mercy.

That the dowry articles were never given to the complainant by the accused for her use and the accused have retained its illegal possession with them for their own wrongful user much to the detriment to the complainant. That the accused intentionally and malafidely refused to entrust the dowry articles to the complainant though she was legally and morally entitled to them being Stridhan of the complainant, having been given to her in marriage.

That a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was filed by the complainant which has since been decided.

That the complainant is residing at Ludhiana within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court.

That on 1371987, the complainant asked the accused persons to send the dowry articles but they refused to return the same, although the same were. in trust with them. That the accused have thus malafidely, intentionally and illegally having lust converted the dowry articles as per list appended hereto to their own wrongful loss much to the loss of the complainant causing her immense mental agony. The accused are in possession of the said articles in, complete violation of the directions given by the parents of the complainant. The parents of the complainant requested and asked the accused at the time of marriage to give the dowry articles to the complainant for her use but the accused have not done the needful and thus committed breach of trust punishable under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. The demand was made in the presence of S. Makhan Singh Shingara Singh and Jagir Singh and other relatives".

The trial Court after recording evidence did not summon Joginder Singh, Mst. Mohinder Kaur, Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, Mst. Charanjit Kaur and Resham Singh, the distant relations of Sukhdev Singh, husband of the complainant on the ground that they are living at a far off place and there is no question of their involvement in the misappropriation of Istri Dhan of Mst Kulwant Kaur complainant. Primafacie case, however, was found against the present petitioners and Sukhdev Singh and they were summoned to face trial for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for both the parties had failed to put in appearance although this case was first taken up before lunch and now, at 2.45 P. M. Thus there is no option but to dispose of this petition in the absence of the counsel for the parties.

A bare glance through the facts contained in complaint Annexure P I leaves no doubt that there are no specific allegations about the entrustment of the dowry articles of Istri Dhan to any of the accused at the time of marriage except vague assertion that all the accused had taken those articles from the father of the complainant. The allegations regarding maltreatment pertain to the husband Sukhdev Singh who is not a party to this petition There is no specific allegation ''against the present petitioners regarding maltreatment of the complainant. The marriage took place about five years prior to the filing of this complaint while Mst. Kulwant Kaur was forced to leave the house of hers inlaws on 731984 Keeping in view that in the presence of the mother of the bridegroom, brothers or sisters of the latter are not usually expected to accept the Istri Dhan on the occasion of her marriage unless special circumstances are disclosed or it is averred that some brother or sister of the bridegroom were entrusted with such articles. Thus the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners except Mst Parkash Kaur would certainly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. However, the case of mother. of the bridegroom stands. on a different footing as rebuttable presumption. of entrusting the property is available from the natural behaviour of human beings.

The contention of the petitioners in the petition that the complaint for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is barred by time is also not acceptable, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7923M of 1989 rendered on 911991 holding that misappropriation of Istri Dhan is a continuing offence and would continue to be committed till such property is returned to the wife. In the case in hand, the complainant has made last demand on 1371987 for the return of her dowry'' articles but the accused had refused to part with the same. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 2071987. Thus by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be barred under the provisions of Section 468(2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is averred in the grounds of petition that Sukhdev Singh alongwith his wife i. e. Mst. Kulwant Kaur complainant are residing in village Darya Majra in District Kurukshetra whereas Mst. Parkash Kaur, accused petitioner is residing in Ludhiana and thus there was no question of her misappropriation of the Istri Dhan which is lying at the matrimonial house of the complainant at village Darya Majra. This accusedpetitioner had yet to lead evidence in this regard as there is no indication from the complaint that Sukhdev Singh ever resided in village Darya Majra. On the other hand, the address of Sukhdev Singh and that of his co accused i.e. Mst. Parkash Kaur has been depicted at House No. 7140, Street No. 14, Dada Road, Ludhiana It would he a matter of detailed evidence to conclude that Sukhdev Singh alongwith his wife Mst. Kulwant Kaur complainant are residing at village Darya Majra

For the reasons recorded above, the complaint Annexure P I as well as the summoning order Annexure P 2 is quashed qua Balvinder, Singh, Mst. Paramjit Kaur Surjit Singh, Mst. Ravinder Kaur and Mst. Gian Kaur petitioners in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the criminal court. The case of Mst. Parkash Kaur motherinlaw of Mst. Kulwant Kaur complainant, however, stands on different footing for entrustment of property and no interference is called for on her behalf. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.