Ram Kali vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed by Ram Kali invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint filed by Smt. Kamla respondent No. 2 dated 28.11.1990 and subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the said complaint.

The relevant facts are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner and others with respect to offences punishable under Sections 406/498A IPC. She had complained that her marriage was solemnized with Parmod Kumar on 25.5.1983. Petitioner is her motherinlaw. At the time of marriage sufficient dowry had been given. Out of the articles of dowry, some of the articles were even entrusted to Mithan Lal father of her husband and some of the articles to Puran Chand. There were some articles which had been entrusted to the petitioner. The accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry. They started treating her with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. As a result of it, respondent No. 2 was beaten mercilessly. Her husband used to give the threats that he would divorce her. She was turned out of the house and the dowry articles despite demand were not returned. In paragraph 9 respondent No. 2 had pleaded :

"That previously also a complaint on these facts was filed by the complainant in this Hon''ble Court on 19.10.1989 in which the accused persons at Sr. No. 1 to 3 were summoned. It was fixed for 16.11.1990 for evidence of the complainant. On that day the complainant could not put in appearance on account of illness and also could not inform her counsel about it, as a result of which that complaint was dismissed in default on 16.11.1990. The same may kindly be tagged with this file. It is, therefore, prayed that all the accused persons may kindly be summoned, tried and punished according to law."

The learned Judicial Magistrate on 7.12.1991 summoned the petitioner and others with respect to offences punishable under Section 406 IPC. After the petitioner appeared and the trial proceeded, on 1.3.1996 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that there is sufficient evidence that petitioner and some others had committed the offence. As against the petitioner and others charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A IPC.

By virtue of the present petition, the complaint and the subsequent proceedings are prayed to be quashed. It is pleaded that earlier complaint filed by respondent No. 2 had been dismissed. Once the earlier complaint had been dismissed, the second complaint was not maintainable.

In the reply filed by respondent No. 2, the dispute is not raised regarding the dismissal of the earlier complaint for nonappearance but plea has been raised that second complaint was maintainable. It was insisted that respondent No. 2 had been harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and that the above offences had been committed by the petitioner.

At the time of arguments, the sole argument advanced was that since the earlier complaint had been dismissed, the second complaint was not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2332 and also the decisions of this Court in the case of Raminder Singh and others v. Darshan Singh, 1991(3) RCR 447 besides the case of Vinod Kumar and others v. Veena Kumari, 1993(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 570. It was contended relying on these decisions that once the earlier complaint had been dismissed, the second complaint was not maintainable.

The said contention is without any merit. All these decisions had been considered by this Court in the case of Ramji Lal v. Ram Chander, Criminal Misc. 12074M of 1992, decided on 10.1.1997 : 1997(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 803. After scanning through the various decisions it was held :

"It is obvious from the aforesaid that if a complaint had been dismissed on consideration of the evidence on record, a second complaint would only be maintainable if there is manifest error and unjust or new facts are brought to the notice of the court. If the court finds that there is an abuse of the process of the Court, the court can also refuse to entertain the subsequent complaint. In the present case in hand the position is different. The respondent had preferred a complaint. It was dismissed in default. The respondent has given the reason that he had fallen sick. In the second complaint, the fact of the earlier complaint having been filed was not suppressed. In this process the learned Judicial Magistrate was made aware of the facts pertaining to dismissal of the earlier complaint and the reason thereto. When the subsequent complaint was entertained and notice issued, it is to be presumed that the learned trial court was aware and was satisfied about the said reason. It cannot be termed that there was any abuse of the process of the court. The earlier complaint had not been dismissed on consideration of the evidence. There was no bar thus in entertaining the second complaint."

The position in the present case is identical. On 16.11.1990 the earlier complaint was dismissed and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana had pased the following order :

"No one appeared on behalf of the complainant. Case called several times since morning. It is now 3.40 p.m. and hence the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room."

Subsequently, when the complaint was filed, the factum about dismissal of the earlier complaint had been brought to the notice of the court. It was mentioned in the subsequent complaint that earlier complaint had been dismissed. Once this fact had been brought to the notice of this Court, it is deemed that he felt that there were circumstances which prevented the petitioner from filing the earlier complaint. The petitioner had contended that she was not well and could not inform her counsel. It is clear that there were compelling circumstances which found favour with the trial court and consequently the second complaint was entertained. It is not a case where it can be stated or held that respondent No. 2 was abusing the process of the court or unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. Therefore, the trial court rightly proceeded to entertain the complaint.

There is another way of looking at the matter. The petitioner had appeared after the second compliant was filed before the Judicial Magistrate five years ago. He waited for five years before coming to this Court. There is inordinate delay. This Court would be reluctant to interfere because part of trial had already proceeded and taken a shape.

For these reasons, there is no ground to interfere. The petition fails and is dismissed.