Rai Singh vs Gurdev Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') relates to quashment of complaint dated 1031988 (Annexure P 1), filed by the respondentwife against her husband Rai Singh, and, his brothers Nirbhai Singh and Chetan Singh, petitioners, under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and, the resultant proceedings taken on the basis of the said complaint, including the summoning order dated 481988 (Annexure P 2), passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna.

In brief, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and the respondent took place as far back as 1451959. The respondent filed a complaint (Annexure P 1) in the Court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, on 1031988. According to the allegations made in the complaint, all the accusedpetitioners demanded dowry as a condition precedent for the solemnisation of the said marriage, On the inducement and pursuance of the accused, the articles of dowry mentioned in the list attached, which constituted Istri Dhan and absolute property of the complainant, were entrusted to petitioner No. 1 at the time of marriage, by the parents and relatives of the complainant, with the direction to the husband (petitioner No. 1) to give the said articles of dowry to the complainant as and when demanded. On 15121977 an amount of Rs. 36,000/ was deposited by Sh. Jagir Singh, father of the complainant, in her name in the fixed deposit, with the Union Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh. The said amount along with interest was withdrawn by her husband. All the accused in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to all sorts of mental and physical cruelty, and, also harassed her and her parents with a view to coerce the complainant to meet their unlawful demand and to bring money from her parents. On 2821988 the accused petitioners went to the residence of the complainant in the morning. At that time her husband (petitioner No. 1) told her that she should never try to return to his house as she had performed the marriage of his son without getting Deluxe Maruti Car, and, rupees two lacs from the in law of his son. The accused petitioners also threatened that they would negotiate to perform second marriage of Rai Singh accusedpetitioner. On hearing this, the complainant demanded return of the articles of dowry, but the accused refused to do so. At that time her husband also demanded rupees one lac in cash from her as a condition precedent, in order to rehabilitate her.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

As held in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rai Scindia & Anr. etc., v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. etc., 1988 A.I.R. (SC) 709 : 1988 Criminal Appeals Reporter 121 (S.C.) , the legal position is wellsettled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court, is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

It has been rightly, contended on behalf of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 that there are no specific allegations that any specific article of dowry had been entrusted to them at the time of solemnisation of marriage of Rai Singh (petitioner No., 1) with Gurdev Kaur respondent, which, took place about 30 year back. Rather, in para No. 4 of the complaint it has been specifically mentioned that the articles of dowry, which constituted Istri Dhan and absolute property of the complainant, were entrusted to her husband Rai Singh petitioner. In para No. 12 of the complaint it is mentioned that on 28.2.1988, when, the complainant demanded back her articles of dowry entrusted to her husband Rai Singh at the time of marriage, the accused refused to return any article of dowry. The allegation that an amount of Rs. 36,000/ deposited by her father in her name, was withdrawn by her husband, also relates to Rai Singh (petitioner No 1). Besides, no details concerning individual acts of cruelty, or, harassment by Nirbhai Singh and Chetan Singh, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, towards the respondent, have been made in the complaint (Annexure P 1). Thus, no offence punishable under Sections 406 or 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been made out against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. On this point I am supported by Single Bench authorities of this Court Balwinder Kumar and anr. v. Kashama Devi alias Shama Devi, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports, 67 and Jasbir Kaur and ors. v. Kamaljit Kaur, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 532.

As far as Rai Singh, petitioner No. 1, is concerned, there are specific allegations concerning handing over of articles of dowry to him at the time of the marriage, and, his refusal to return those articles of dowry on 28.2.1988, when all the three petitioners are stated to have gone to the residence of the complainant at Khanna. Besides, there are specific allegations against this petitioner that after his marriage with the respondent, he had acted with cruelty towards her, and, caused her harassment by demanding more and more articles of dowry, and, cash. Truthfulness. or, otherwise of the said allegations can be judged after the witnesses produced by the complainant are subjected to crossexamination, as well as, the evidence led in defence by Rai Singh petitioner, is also considered by the trial Court. In these circumstances it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion on this point at this stage. It would be for the trial Court to decide this question, as well as, other objections raised by Rai Singh accusedpetitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint against Nirbhai Singh and Chetan Singh, accusedpetitioners, and, the resultant proceedings taken against them, are directed to be quashed. The trial Court would proceed with the complaint as far as Rai Singh accused petitioner is concerned, and, dispose of the complaint according to law.

This petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.