Rohtas and others vs State of Haryana

B.S. Nehra, J.

Mrs. Suraj Mukhi wife of Rohtas, petitioner No. 1 in this petition, had lodged a first information report with the police on 30.6.1991. Broadly, the allegations in the first information report are as under : Her marriage had been solemnised with Rohtas about five years back. At the time of her marriage, her brothers gave her gold Nath (nose ring) weighing 1.25 Toles, one gold Dhol weighing 1 Tola, one gold locket weighing 6. Mashas, one pair of gold rings weighing 1.5 Tola, 2 silver pendents and one pair of Pazeb weighing 200 grams. The articles of dowry also consisted of one box, two Pettis, 51 utensils, one sewing machine, one table fan, one table, two chairs. one bed, one iron and ten blankets. Rohtas was given one gold ring weighing 1 Tola and one radio at the time of her marriage. Her inlaw had give her one gold necklace, one watch, one gold Teeka, two gold rings and pair of silver Pazeb. After her marriage,she took these articles to her inlaws and stayed there for seven days. During that period her motherinlaw, husband, sisterinlaw Murti Devi and her husband Prakash, who is a resident of Jind, took away her ornaments on the pretext that they wanted to get the design changed and then they will return those ornaments to her. Thereafter she went away to her parents'' house. When her brothers asked about the jewellery, she told him that her motherinlaw, husband, sisterinlaw and her husband have kept the jewelry to get the design changed. She frequented her inlaws'' house for one year and was blessed with a son. Her brother gave her some articles by way of gift but her motherinlaw and husband besides his brotherinlaw (Nandoi) Hari Parkash taunted her that her brother should have given T.V. in Chhuchhak. Thereafter her motherinlaw her husband, her sistersinlaw Murti, Darshna and Usha and brotherinlaw (Nandoi) Hari Parkash started torturing her. They wanted her to sell 17 kanals of land. which fell to her share from her parental side and hand over the sale proceeds to them but she refused to oblige them. They kept her hungry and made her to work. On 19.6.1990, her motherinlaw, her husband, her sistersinlaw Darshna and Ushagave her beating and on 20.6.1990, she reached her elder sister Birmati''s house in village Kanoh and narrated these facts to her. Finaly she alleged that her motherinlaw Bharpai, her husband Rohtas and sister''sinlaw Darshna and Usha gave her severe beatings for bringing inadequate dowry and turned her out of the house.

This resulted in the filing of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by her husband Rohtas, her motherinlaw Bharpai and her sistersinlaw. Darshan and Usha for quashing the first information report and all other proceedings flowing therefrom . The petitioners'' case is that Rohtas, petitioner, and the complainant had been living comfortably since their marriage in 1985 but he found her to be a woman of hot temperament. She could not adjust with him though a son was born from his loins. She is in the habit of leaving the house without telling him. she left the house on 20.6.1990 and when he came to know about it, he enquired from her parental house but she was not present there. On the contrary she went to her sister Birmati in village Kansh and from there she went to her mother in village Depal, where a panchayat was convened for settling the dispute but to no avail. The petitioners have alleged that the complainant had got a false first information report registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to them, the allegations levelled in the first information report are vague. She has roped in the whole family of her inlaws. Darshna, petitioner No. 3, has since been married and petitioner No. 4 Usha is a minor. They have added that the complainant has not furnished any particulars of the alleged cruelty allegedly practised by the petitioners against the complainant. In the absence of such material, no offence can be made out against them. They have added that the first information report had been lodged against them merely to harass and humiliate them. There is no allegation that any article of dowry was entrusted by the complainant to any of the petitioners. In the absence of such particulars, no offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out. On these allegations, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the fist information report.

In the reply filed by the state, the allegations of the petitioners have been controverted. It has been added that the trial of the petitioners has commenced and the code is now fixed for prosecution evidence after sufficient material was found during the course of investigation against them. The respondent has further stated that the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution during the investigation, have revealed that the ornaments were not returned to the complainant. They have added that the investigation has further revealed that on 19.6.1990, petitioners No. 1 to 4 gave fist, slap and Danda blows to the complainant. The respondent has, therefore, asked for the dismissal of the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, have been heard at length.

According to the contents of the first information report lodged by the complainant, the petitioner was give beating by the petitioners on 20.6.1990 but the first information report was lodged against them on 30.6.1990. No material has been placed on the record by the complainant to explain the delay of ten days in lodging the first information report. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the intervening time was used for consultations to fabricate a false version against them. This contention cannot be easily brushed aside.

According to the complainant''s own case, she had taken the gold ornaments given to her by her parents in the marriage to her inlaws'' house. This implies that no article of dowry was entrusted to any of the petitioners at the time of the marriage. In the absence of such allegations being made and proof being produced no conclusion can be reached in favour of the complainant that any article of dowry was given to any of the petitioners. The offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot, therefore, be said to have been made out against the petitioners. It has been held in numerous Judgments handed down by this Court that in the absence or a specific allegation with regard to entrustment of any specific article of dowry to the accused, no offence under Section 498A or 406 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the accused. Such a view was taken in Harbans Lal and another v. Rama Rani, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 682. In Gunwant Raj and others v. Madhu Sharma, 1991(1) Recent Criminal Reports 607 It was held by this Court that in the absence of clear and specific allegation against a particular accused with respect to misappropriation of articles of dowry, no case against the accused is made out.

The complainant was married to the petitioner in the year 1985. Her case is that within about a week of her marriage, the petitioners and other relatives of petitioner No. 1 had taken away her ornaments allegedly for the purpose of changing of the designs. The complainant has, however, failed to offer any explanation why she remained silent for a period of five years till she lodged the first information report on 30.6.1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first information report, in the circumstances of the case, is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relevant provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under :

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be

(a) six months, is the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years."

On a reading of subsection (1) of this provision in conjunction with clause (c) of subsection (2) of this Section it would appear that the complainant should have lodged the first information report within three years of her being allegedly deprived of her ornaments by the petitioners, but she has failed to furnish any explanation on the record as to why she did not do so. In view of the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conclusion is irresistible that no Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

The allegation against petitioners 3 and 4 only is that they had allegedly given beating to the complainant on 20.6.1990. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 4 Usha is a minor, while petitioner No. 3 Darshna has since been married. it is implausible that a minor child would have given beating to the complainant. Besides the allegation of the complainant against these two petitioners is rendered doubtful as the complainant failed to lodge the first information report soon after her alleged beating by them.

The complainant has also levelled allegations in the first information repot against her sisterinlaw. Murti Devi and the later''s husband Hari Parkash for their having taken her ornaments away, but strangely enough the complainant has not choose to implead them as accused in this complaint. This shows that she has tried to conveniently rope in all such persons as accused, as she could conveniently do so and has chosen to leave out others who were living separately. Be that as it may the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners and others are not only vague but are also implausible. The petitioners'' plea for quashing the first information repot lodged by the complainant against them in the circumstances of the case appears to be well founded.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed, first information report No. 36 dated 1.7.1990, copy Annexure P1, registered at Police Station Naranaud, tehsil Hansi, district Hisar, under Sections 498A, 406 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings flowing therefrom are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged. Their bail bonds and surely bond also discharged.