Rajinder Singh vs Arinder Kaur

V.K. Bali, J.

Rajinder Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur, who are parents of Satinder Singh, whose marriage went on rocks after a short span of marital life, seek quashing of a complaint lodged by their daughterinlaw, Arinder Kaur, respondent No. 1, under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending disposal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, through present petition filed by them under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that Satinder Singh, their son, was married to Arinder Kaur on March 6, 1988, at Jalandhar. The match to the marriage was proposed through an insertion in the newspaper, where caste and creed of the spouses was to be of no bar and the only bar was that there will be no giving and taking of any dowry whatsoever. The Baraat consisting of nine persons including the groom came to Jalandhar and stayed in the Army Mess arranged by the father of Arinder Kaur. It was simple marriage and as per the case of the petitioners no dowry was given or taken as it had already been agreed to in tune with the advertisement seeking matrimonial match. After the marriage, bridegroom and bride returned to Delhi the same evening on March 6, 1988 with others who had accompanied the groom to Jalandhar for marriage. The couple after marriage had gone for honeymoon and after returning therefrom stayed together in Delhi upto August 6, 1988 when Arvinder Kaur left for her parents'' place at Jalandhar. It is pleaded that before the marriage, Arvinder Kaur was pursuing her B.Ed. studies at Jalandhar which she had taken up again after coming from Delhi and for the reasons best known to her she filed a petition in the Courts at Jalandhar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from her husband. The service on the son of petitioners was got effected through publication and an exparte decree was passed after recording statement of Arinder Kaur and her father on March 24, 1992. At the time of her departure from Delhi, she is stated to have brought along with her certain ornaments and jewellery which were presented to her by the petitioners at the time of engagement which consisted of golden set of necklace, ear rings, two bangles, ponchi and diamond ring. When Arinder Kaur had gone to the house of petitioners for the first time as bride, she was also presented with one gold chain, seven suits/sarees, one shingar box and all these items were also taken by her. She also filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is stated to be pending. On November, 19, 1991 a criminal complaint, sought to be quashed in the present petition, was filed by Arinder Kaur in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. After recording statements of Arvinder Kaur and her father Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners and Satinder Singh, their son, as accused in the aforesaid complaint under Section 406 IPC.

It is so pleaded and argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the allegations made in the complaint make it out a case as if the complainant had been met with cruelty and harassment on account of inadequate dowry given by her parents. She has also alleged that her husband Satinder Singh had some other girl, namely, Ritu in his mind and that he was always the television which used to cause harassment to her. All these allegations are stated to be totally false and the complaint is sought to be quashed on the ground of limitation, the complaint having been filed on November 19, 1991 beyond the period of three years from August 6, 1988, when according to the complainant, she left the house of her husband. It is also being argued that there is no allegation of specific entrustment of any of the articles as also that the complainant had lived at Delhi from March 6 to August 6, 1988 and if she was divested of the dowry articles at Delhi, the Courts at Jalandhar would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There are other grounds taken in the petition for quashing of the complaint but it is only the aforestated grounds which have been pressed into service at the time of arguments.

Mr. Khehar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that inasmuch as the complainant has since long remarried and settled abroad and when the marriage between the husband and wife had been dissolved by a decree of divorce, it would be complete injustice to the petitioners, who happen to be parents of complainant''s husband to face an agonising trial.

In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, respondentArvinder Kaur has filed reply and even though it has been admitted that in the advertisement inserted in the newspaper seeking matrimonial proposal it was mentioned that there was not to be any dowry to be given in the marriage, yet it has been pleaded that in fact and reality the items mentioned in Annexure ''A'' attached with the complaint were actually given to her husband and his relations including the petitioners. It is pleaded by her that after the marriage she was treated with utmost cruelty by the petitioners and their son and all these details of cruelty were given by her even in the petition for divorce. It is also pleaded that as long as she lived in the house of petitioners at Delhi, she was not allowed to use any dowry article given to her by her parents and rather she was told to bring more articles from her parents for her use at the house of her inlaws. In August 1988, the Bhog ceremony of complainant''s maternal grandfather was to be held at Jalandhar. As such, she requested her husband to take her to Jalandhar wherefrom they would return immediately after the ceremony was over. Her husband pointblank refused to accompany her with the result she had to come to Jalandhar all alone. As she was leaving for Jalandhar, Satinder Singh thoroughly examined her small attachecase which she was carrying to find out as to what was being carried by her. Though, the complainant was carrying only two changes in that small attachecase and not even a single item of jewellery but the manner in which Satinder Singh searched the attachecase was most humiliating and degrading as if the belongings of a thief were being searched. While leaving the complainant at the railway station, her husband told her not to come back to Delhi till October 31, 1988 saying that during those days his stars were really bad as told by an astrologer. On reaching Jalandhar she narrated the details of maltreatment meted out by her inlaws to her parents at which they felt highly upset. Her father addressed a letter to petitioner Rajinder Singh in a most humble manner requesting him to arrange a meeting so that problems between her and her husband may be resolved, but he gave no response to the said letter with the result that she continued living at Jalandhar till the end of October, 1988. She was anxious to return to her inlaws house and, therefore, she rang up from Jalandhar on 7.11.1988 which was responded to by petitioner Rajinder Singh. She sought permission from her fatherinlaw to return to Delhi before November 9, 1988 but in turn he told that she need not come to Delhi because her husband had already left for United States and that till he returns, she should not think of coming to their house. It is further pleaded that her husband had left India and joined United States even without informing her. As such, sensing trouble, she along with her parents went to Delhi on November 9, 1988 and on reaching the house of petitioners, it was found to be locked. She along with her parents stayed at Delhi till November 14, 1988 and during this period they visited the house of petitioners and found the same locked. It was only on November 14, 1988 that she along with her parents per chance met petitionerSurjit Kaur. Her father requested that she may be allowed to stay with them but the said petitioner pointblank replied that she would not be kept in their house. Having no choice in the matter, she along with her parents came to Jalandhar. Ultimately, when the petitioners and their relations refused to rehabilitate her, they were requested to handover the dowry articles but they refused to do the same and it is in these circumstances that she was compelled to file a complaint under Section 406/34 IPC read with Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Before I proceed with the matter on merits, it requires to be mentioned that inasmuch as way back in 1991 there was a divorce between the son of petitioners and his wife Arinder Kaur and the only surviving dispute was with regard to return of dowry articles, all out efforts for compromise were made. Whereas the petitioners were prepared to compensate the respondentArinder Kaur even though it was their specific case that whatever was brought by her had since been taken at the time when she left Delhi with a view never to return but the father of Arinder Kaur, who was present in the Court, respondentArinder Kaur being admittedly settled abroad after second marriage, wanted law to take its course.

It is no doubt true that in the advertisement inserted in the newspaper asking for matrimonial proposal there was indeed a mention that no dowry shall be taken but that does not mean that parents of a girl do not give anything to their daughter or to her husband and his relations. Respondentcomplainant, however, has nowhere mentioned in her complaint that at the time of marriage there was demand of dowry and all that she is complaining about is, that whatever items were given to her by her parents, she was not given anything at the time when she lived in her matrimonial home at Delhi and so much so when the dispute between her and her husband surfaced and a demand was made for return of her Ishtri dhan, she was denied return of the same. The above noted being rival contention of the parties with regard to giving or not giving the dowry, it shall be very difficult for this Court, without recording evidence, to come to a definite conclusion one way or the other. This controversy can better be appreciated by the trial Judge after the parties lead their evidence.

Insofar as points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to limitation and jurisdiction are concerned, suffice it to say that limitation would not start from the date the husband and wife fell apart or when the respondent left the matrimonial home at Delhi and come to Jalandhar but it would start from the date when petitioners and their son refused to return the dowry articles. The marriage was admittedly solemnized at Jalandhar, where as per the case of respondentcomplainant, dowry articles were handed over. It cannot, thus, be said that the courts at Jalandhar would have no jurisdiction in the matter.

Insofar as last submission of learned counsel that after the respondentcomplainant has remarried and settled abroad, it would be injustice to prosecute the ageing parents of Satinder Singh is concerned, this Court can have only sympathy with the petitioners. By and large the allegations of harassment and nonreturn of dowry articles are attributed to son of the petitioners but it cannot be said that there are no allegations at all against the petitioners on that count. A complete list of dowry articles has been annexed with the complaint itself and some of the articles therein, it is the specific case of the respondentcomplaint, were entrusted to the petitioners.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, fully detailed above, this Court has no choice but to dismiss this petition. So ordered. In totality of the circumstances of this case, however, it is ordered that the petitioners, who have to face their trial at Jalandhar while residing at Delhi and having their house there, shall be exempted from their personal appearance before the trial court, subject to the conditions that the lawyer engaged by them shall appear on their behalf on each date of hearing as also that they shall come present as and when required by the trial court for some specific purpose and that the proceedings taken in their absence shall be binding upon them.

The complaint was instituted way back in the year 1991 and since 1992 the matter has remained pending in this Court. It goes without saying that the petitioners must have gone through a difficult time all these years. This case would, thus, need urgent attention by the trial Judge, who shall endeavour his very best to conclude the trial as early as possible and in any case not later than nine months from the date a copy of this order is placed before him. As the crucial witness in this case would be the complainant herself, who is stated to be settled abroad, one date that may suit both the articles for recording her evidence, shall be given and on that date her evidence shall be positively recorded and no adjournment on that count shall be granted in any circumstances.

As the proceedings against the petitioners had since been stayed at the time of admission of this petition, parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8th of August, 1995.

JUDGMENT accordingly.