Pawan Kumar and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 71 of 2010 dated 10.6.2010 u/s 406/ 498-A/ 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Majitha District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-respondent No. 2 had got married to Satish Kumar on 19.11.1991. Sufficient dowry was given by the parents of respondent No. 2 at the time of her marriage. However, accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by the parents of the complainant at the time of her marriage. Father of the complainant was owner of four petrol pumps. Accused demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- from the complainant. Father of the complainant used to render financial help to the accused to save her matrimonial life. Complainant was blessed with two daughters and one son out of the wedlock. Complainant started residing with her parents in February, 2005 on account of atrocities meted out to her by the accused, but keeping in view the interest of her children, complainant again came back to the matrimonial home. However, Satish Kumar gave beatings to the complainant on 15.7.2009 and fled away. The matter was reported to the police and hence, FIR in question was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are the relatives of husband of respondent No. 2, Petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of Satish Kumar, husband of respondent No. 2, Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1, Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the married sisters of Satish Kumar. Petitioner No. 5 is the maternal uncle of Satish Kumar. Petitioners were residing separately from the complainant and her husband. In March 2005, Satish Kumar had shifted to his in-laws'' house along with the complainant. Petitioner No. 3 had got married in the year 1978 and was residing in her matrimonial home since then. Petitioner No. 4 had got married in the year 1994 and was residing in her matrimonial home since then.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have stated that petitioners, in connivance with their co-accused, had harassed the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry and had been demanding more dowry from her.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 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 channelised 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, 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.

The Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has held as under:-

The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassins'' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.

In the present case, admittedly, petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the married sisters of Satish Kumar and are residing in their matrimonial home. Petitioner No. 1 is elder brother of Satish Kumar and is apparently residing with his wife and children. Petitioner No. 5 is the maternal uncle of Satish Kumar. Marriage of the complainant was performed with Satish Kumar in the year 1991 and as per the FIR, the eldest daughter of the complainant was aged 18 years at the time of registration of the FIR. It appears that after such a long period, the FIR in question has been got registered by respondent No. 2 due to some matrimonial discord between her and her husband. Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be said to be benefiting by demanding dowry from the complainant. It appears that petitioners had been involved in this case merely because of their relationship with Satish Kumar.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 71 of 2010 dated 10.6.2010 u/s 406/ 498-A/ 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Majitha District Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed.