Rajwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint dated 20.10.2003 filed under sections 406/ 498-A/494/420/504/506/34 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur and also the summoning order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka summoning the petitioner herein u/s 504/506 IPC as well as subsequent proceedings arising thereto qua the petitioner.

The main ground on which the petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint is that even if all the allegations made in the complaint qua the petitioner are taken on their face value no offence u/s 504 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner and thus, the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings and the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is nothing but misuse of the process of the court.

In order to appreciate the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to notice, that in the complaint the allegations against the petitioner are to the following effect:

That when I was expecting my daughter at that time accused Chinder Singh gave me beatings and turned me out of my matrimonial home. He asked me to get the child aborted and turned me out of the house after giving beatings in August. 2002. On this I got FIR registered against accused at PS City Fazilka. The said FIR was registered u/ss 315/511/323 IPC dated 18.08.2002 at P.S. City Fazilka. After FIR the accused compromised the matter with me and said that he will not do alike in future. After compromise between us, accused Chinder Singh was acquitted by the Ld. Court. Then again 1 started residing in the house of Chinder Singh as his wife. I and my husband started living at Fazilka in a rented house. Accused No. 2 Rajwinder Kaur came to our house and I asked her that whom she wanted to meet. He told me that she was the first wife of Chinder Singh and that I had no connection with this house. When Chinder Singh came, I asked him that when he was married earlier then why he did not tell me about this. He said that he did not tell me about this voluntarily. I asked him that you have cheated me, where as you told me that you got divorce from your first wife but in fact divorce did not took place between Rajwinder Kaur and Chinder Singh. In this manner the accused Chinder Singh had cheated me and spoiled my life.

That after I was turned out of my house, 1 came to the house of my parents. When I came to my house, then I my mother and my brother-in-law Manpreet Singh went to the house of Chinder Singh accused and requested Chinder Singh to rehabilitate Simarpaf Kaur but he turned a deaf ear. When we took Panchayat to the house of Chinder Singh at Jalalabad, at that time Rajwinder Kaur was also present there. 1 asked Chinder Singh to return the dowry articles given at the time of marriage but he flatly refused to return the same. Rajwinder Kaur and Chinder Singh started threatening that they will not return the articles and we can do what ever we can. We have misappropriated he articles. Rajwinder Kaur hurled abuses onus. All the articles i.e. My Istridhan which was handed over to Chinder Singh at the time of marriage and same were given to Rajwinder Kaur by Chinder Singh. Both the accused in connivance with each other have misappropriated the articles.

This Panchayat went about five months before.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of her contention that no offence under sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out if the allegations as levelled are taken on its face value has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas Kosalia v. Narender Kumar Jain 1991 (2) RCR (Cri) 518 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under:-

Even if the conversation as stated above is taken to be correct, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant is a practising lawyer on taxation side at Bhiwani and the present petitioner is also a public servant, discharging his duties as an appellate authority i.e. Joint Taxation Commissioner. It is presumable that they must be meeting each other in discharge of their duties. Even if the complainant is allowed to say that the said conversation has caused alarm or threat of injury, then that imaginary injury and harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper should complaint of it. The complainant being an advocate, was expected, not to bother about what allegedly had been said to him by the petitioner on telephone. To my mind, advocate of ordinary sense and temper would never complaint of an such harm. This view of mine gets ample support from a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. While interpreting it their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Veeda Menezes Vs. Yusuf Khan and Another, :

The next question is whether, having regard to the harm caused to the appellant and to her servant Robert was so. slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complaint of such harm: Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivia! character. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention which the offending act is done, and other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complaint of the harm. It cannot be judged sole!\\ by the measure of physical or other injury the act causes. A soldier assaulting his colonel, a policeman assaulting his Superintendent or a pupil beating his teacher, commit offences, the heinousness of which cannot be determined merely by the actual injury suffered by the officer or the teacher, for the assault would be wholly subversive of discipline. A assault by one child on another, or even by a grown up person on another, which causes injuries may still be regarded as so slight, having regard to the way and station of life of the parties, relation between them, situation in which the parties arc placed, and other circumstances in which harm is caused, that the victim ordinarily ma\\ not complain of the harm.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Mehra v. Ajmer Singh. 1991 (1) RCR (Cri) 699 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under;-

The matter does not rest here as even if for the sake of argument the allegations of the complainant are taken to be true, no offence punishable under sections 506. 504 Indian Penal Code, would be made out as mere boastful threats rendered by the tenant would not fall under the mischief of those provisions. It is not averred in the complaint that Anil Mehra petitioner had asked his two Sikh companions to fetch arms lying in the van although this fact figures in the order of the trial Court summoning the accused-petitioner which in turn implies that during preliminary evidence the complainant may have tried to improve upon his version.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Usha Bala v. State of Punjab, 2002 (3) RCR (Cri) 445 contends that empty threats do not make out a case u/s 506 IPC. In that case this Court was pleased to quash the proceedings wherein the only allegations made against the accused was that there was threat given to her as is in the present case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Bombay High Court in the case of Madhavrao Gajanan Deshpamle v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (3) CCC 291 (Bombay) : 2003 (4) RCR (Cri) 788 (Bombay) wherein the Hon''ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to law down as under:-

The provisions of section 504 indicate that the offender should intentionally insult the complainant and thereby should give provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation should cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence. For the purpose of coming to a prima facie conclusion, whether offence has been made out or not. the abuses uttered or alleged to have been uttered should have been mentioned in the complaint or in the charge-sheet. Then those abuses are mentioned, it would give an idea to the Court whether by said abuses, the person to whom the abuses have been addressed would get provoked and to such an extent that thereby he would commit breach of peace, or commit any other offence It is a matter of common experience that in the society some abuses are being uttered without meaning anything thereby. What section 504 requires is that there has to be an intention to insult a person by uttering said abuses or bad words. Therefore, failure in quoting those abuses would lead to the conclusion that no offence has been prima facie made out.

Section 506 (1) of Indian Penal Code provides punishment for criminal intimidation, which has been defined by section 503 of Indian Penal Code. For bringing home the offence which has been indicated by section 503 of Indian Penal Code, the -allegations should indicate prima facie but specifically to the extent that the person against whom the prosecution has been initiated did an act with the intention of causing alarm to that person or that was sufficient enough to cause that person to do an act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit it to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, for avoiding the result of such threat. In the present case, the complaint does not make out a case, as indicated by provisions of section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, on this count also prosecution has failed to make out a case for the Court to take cognizance and to proceed with it.

Lastly, Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Bombay High Court in the case of Virendrabhai M. Chundalia and Another v. Mohan Kanayalai Parwani and Another, 2003 (4) RCR (Cri) 787 : 2003 (3) CCC 310 (Bombay), wherein Hon''ble Bombay High Court was pleased to lay down as under:-

Section 504 of the Indian-Penal Code reads as follows:-

Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will abuse him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with line, or with both." It indicates that the accused should insult the complainant and should thereby give provocation to complainant or any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The complaint in question does not show any ingredient which has been indicated by section 504 of Indian Penal Code, He has not taken care of mentioning the words spoken by the petitioner, which according to him, were intending to insult him. For spelling out an offence indicated by section 504 Indian Penal Code exact words alleged to have been uttered have to be mentioned in complaint. He has not made any averment in-the said complaint that by hearing those words spoken he was provoked and that too to such an extent that there was likelihood of the committing breach of public peace or any other offence. In the absence of that, the learned Magistrate was totally wrong in taking the cognizance of the complaint of the complainant against the petitioners in context with an offence punishable u/s 504 of Indian Penal Code, as commission of that offence cannot be said to be made out by present complainant.

Mr. A.S. Kalra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent, however, contended that there are specific allegations against the accused petitioner and it is only when the parties lead evidence it would be possible for the complainant to elaborate the allegations and make out an offence against the petitioner. It is also the contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant that it is after leading of evidence that it would be open to the learned trial court to discharge the accused in case no offence is made out.

However, on consideration of the matter, I find force in the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence punishable under sections 504 and 506 IPC. The summoning order passed by the learned trial court qua the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The petitioner can only elaborate the allegations made in the complaint and once the allegations are totally vague and do not make out any offence, the continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but misuse of the process of the court. Thus, in view of the settled law relied upon by the petitioner this petition is allowed. The complaint and subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner alone are ordered to be quashed.