Raj Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurdev Singh, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code''), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, has been filed by Raj Singh, Sheodan Singh, Gajender Singh and Devinder Singh, petitioners, for quashing FIR No. 516 dated 31.8.2005 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda (Annexure P/8), under Sections 406/34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

According to the the petitioners, petitioners No. 1 and 2 on the assurance of one Lata, resident of Vikas Colony, Agra, agreed to enter marriage alliance of their son, petitioner No. 3, with Poonam @ Babli, sister of respondent No. 2. Both the boy and the girl had face to face talk with each other by way of ceremony performed at the residence of Lata on 23.2.2003 and they approved of each other. Immediately thereafter, petitioners No. 1 and 2 went to the market and bought diamond and gold jewellery to the tune of Rs. 90,900/- and Rs. 1,02,070/- vide cash memos of that date (Annexures P/1 and P/2) from Shivam Jewellery, Agra. They also purchased other valuable ornaments. All those articles were given to Poonam @ Babli in the presence of her mother and other relatives. They and their family members were invited to Bathinda by respondent No. 2 so that they may also participate in the ceremony. Accordingly, they visited Bathinda on 5.3.2003 and at that time they offered valuable to Poonam @ Babli and that ceremony was given the name of ''ring ceremony''. They were in favour of early marriage and after getting a word from the mother of respondent No. 2 they got printed weeding cards and the marriage was settled for 19.5.2005. A banquet hall was was got booked by the mother of respondent No. 2. When Poonam @ Babli came to know of that fact she started talking with petitioner No. 3 on the phone and told him in clear cut terms that she had agreed for the marriage with him under pressure of her family members and in reality she has no liking for him and did not wish to marry him as she was liking some other boy. That fact was brought to the notice of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and they thought that instead of spoiling their married life, the parents of the girl should be made aware of the said fact. A registered letter dated 27.4.2005 (Annexure P/5) was written to the mother of the girl and the above said matrimonial alliance was put to an end. Inspite of that Poonam @ Babli continued to extend threats on the phone to petitioner No. 3 and other family members, that they would be involved in some heinous crime in which it will be difficult for them to get the bail. Therefore, immediately a registered letter dated 9.5.2005 (Annexure P/6) was sent to SSP, Agra, with the request to protect their lives and property. Petitioner No. 3 made a request for the return of the articles, which were given at the time of the said ceremonies. However, instead of returning those articles, respondent No. 2 and his family members got lodged the above said FIR, as a counter blast to the letter dated 23.6.2005. Subsequently, they came to know that the mother of respondent No. 2 had got cancelled the booking of banquet hall on 28.4.2005, which shows that the said respondent and his other family members had dishonest intention from the very beginning. All of them are well settled in their life and they have no greed. They never demanded nor received any valuable from respondent No. 2 or his other family members. The FIR is illegal and is an abuse and mis-use of the process of law. No criminal offence is made out from the contents thereof. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, those would adversely affect the administration of justice.

Notice of this petition was given to the respondents and was contested by them. On behalf of respondent No. 1 reply in the form of affidavit was filed by Harsh Kumar Bansal, IPC, Assistant Superintendent of Police (City) Bathinda. He stated in the reply that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2 in which allegations have been levelled that at the time of sagan ceremony, which was attended by the petitioners and their friends and relatives, gold ornaments and cash were given as gifts and on the demand of petitioner No. 3, Rs. 1,80,000/- were paid by the complainant and it was the petitioners who refused to solemnize the marriage, raising other demand of dowry. Report u/s 173(2) of the Code against the petitioners u/s 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has already been presented before the Court and the case is fixed for framing of the charge.

Respondent No. 2 in his reply denied the contentions of the petitioners and pleaded that the girl and petitioner No. 3 had seen each other in the ceremony which was held in Agra on 21.12.2002, which was a simple ceremony and no such diamond or gold jewellery or cash was given by the petitioners. No doubt ring ceremony was held on 5.3.2003, which was attended by a number of persons from the side of the petitioners, but no such articles were given to them at that time. Rather, he and his mother gave huge amount/jewellery to petitioner No. 3 and his family members. The petitioners started demanding Rs. 2 lakhs out of which Rs. 1.8 lakhs were given to them. On their further demand he himself and his mother went to Agra on 27.4.2005 to patch up the matter but the petitioners insisted to break down the marriage and they flatly refused to continue with the marriage alliance. Thereafter, they started levelling allegations about the character of the girl. When the petitioners refused to return the articles so given to them, he got lodged the FIR. The version, as given in the petition by the petitioners, is concocted one.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the behaviour of the girl, the complainant and the other family members immediately after the performance of the ring ceremony showed that they were not interested in the marriage as the girl had liking for some other boy. In order to avoid the subsequent trouble and to nip the evil in the bud, the petitioners refused to go further with that matrimonial alliance. The complainant concocted a false story and got lodged a false FIR. No offence is made out from the contents thereof and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the State counsel and the counsel for respondent No. 2 that the offences, as mentioned in the FIR, are made out from the contents thereof. True facts are stated therein. The petitioners are greedy type of persons. They received gold ornaments and other valuable at the time matrimonial alliance was entered into and they were bound to return the same after they broke that matrimonial alliance. Those were mis-appropriated by them. There is nothing on the record for concluding that the FIR is liable to be quashed.

For proper appreciation of the matter, relevant contents of the FIR are re-produced below:

...That the sister of applicant namely Poonam was engaged with Gajender Singh on 5.3.2003 and Shagun ceremony was performed at Sagar Hotel GT Road, near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda and about 30 persons from Agra came to attend the ceremony (Shagun) (2) That one ring of gold, one chain, one kada each of gold weighing about 5 tolas were given to Gajender Singh while Shunty, Sheodan Singh, Raj Singh was given half tolas of gold ring each alongwith one thousand cash each besides clothes and in total about 55,000/- rupees were spent (3) That Gajender Singh demanded Rs. 2 lakhs on pretext of a disputes regarding a cold storage with their partner at Agra and the applicant give one lakh eighty thousand rupees (Rs. 1,80,000/-) in cash by arranging money by getting loan on interest and mortgaging the gold ornaments. That engagement was arranged through paper. (4) That about 10 days back, Gajender Singh and his father told the applicant when requested for marriage that they are not ready to marry their son with Poonam and by this way, they have cheated the applicant and also when they are asked to return amount given to them to the tune of Rs. 180,000/- and also to the gold cash and clothes given to them at the time of Shagun ceremony but they refused to part with and also threatened with dire consequences if the matter is reported to high ups. (5) That the accused had a pre- planned story of cheating and mis-appropriation the shagun articles given to them in the shape of dowry.

The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code to quash a complaint and criminal proceedings were laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, . The following principles were laid down therein:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed of, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The text is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

A bare perusal of the FIR, re-produced above, shows that the offences u/s 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are clearly made out therefrom. It is well settled law that the Court at the time of quashment of the FIR is only to see if any offence is made out from the contents thereof. The FIR can only be quashed if no such offence is not made out or on the face of it, it appears that the same is a result of a malice or a malafide intention. While deciding this petition, it is not to be seen whether the contentions raised in the FIR are correct or not, as held in the above said ruling. All those allegations are to be taken on their face value and are to be accepted in their entirety.

There is no ground for quashing the FIR and the petition is dismissed.