Sandeep Sharma vs Neha Sharma

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Sandeep Sharma, and other petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent against them, annexure P1 and summoning order annexure P2.

The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against her husband Sandeep Sharma, fatherinlaw H.R. Sharma and motherinlaw Saroj Sharma, fatherinlaw H.R. Sharma and motherinlaw Saroj Sharma alleging that her marriage was solemnised with petitioner No. 1 on 2nd of July, 1990 at Faridabad in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents and relatives gave sufficient number of dowry articles, ornaments, cash, furniture etc. at the time of engagement and marriage and a total amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs was spent. After marriage she remained with the petitioners for about 15 days at Saharanpur, when she was tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and was subjected to ill treatment. Her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw instigated their son who in turn humiliated her and made her suffer mental torture. After about 15 days, she came to her parents'' house and stayed there for 21/2 months. Her husband visited that place 3/4 times but did not show any inclination to take her along. She was told that his parents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and in order to satisfy them, he should be paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/. Petitioner No. 1 was then given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 30,000/ on 19th of September, 1990 and then he took the complainant with him. She was again not treated properly and was subjected to various sorts of illtreatment. On 16th of April 1991, a telephonic message was sent by the complainant through a neighbourer to her parents asking them to come to Badayun as her life was in danger. Her brother came upon 17th of April 1991 and found her in a depressed condition. She was under shock at the behaviour of her husband and motherinlaw. On 24th of April 1991, another telephonic message was sent by the complainant to her parents informing them that she was in a serious condition. Her relatives rushed to Badayun and actually found the condition of the complainant serious. She was rushed to Civil Hospital where the doctor informed that she was not taking proper diet and was under mental shock. She disclosed to her brother and mother that she was victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and motherinlaw and she apprehended danger to her life. She was harassed by all the petitioners in order to extract more money. The petitioners retained her dowry articles which were entrusted to them and dishonestly converted the same to their own use.

The petitioners alleged that marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the respondent was intercaste marriage and was materialised through advertisement. Now dowry was presented by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage and it was a simple marriage, where the bride came to her matrimonial home in her wearing clothes. The respondent was of abnormal temperament and of a cruelsome nature. She was unable to adjust herself within the means of income of her husband. She often visited her parents house at Faridabad without their consent and permission. On 24th of April 1991, she left her matrimonial home along with her brother in the absence of the petitioners and while leaving, she took away gold ornaments and clothes of her own and that of her husband. She refused to come and stay with petitioner No. 1, as a result petitioner No. 1 was left with no alternative except to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It was further contended that the respondent was never subjected to maltreatment, in fact petitioners No. 2 and 3 were living in Saharanpur while petitioner No. 1 was living at Badayun. There were no specific averments in the complaint as to which particular article of dowry was handed over to which of the accused and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were denied and the respondent reiterated her case set up in the complaint annexure P1.

I have heard Mr. Aakash Jain, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the documents placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint regarding entrustment of dowry were vague, general and unspecified. It was not specifically mentioned which dowry article was entrusted to which of the petitioner, so no specific allegations were of no consequence. The allegations made in the complaint annexure P1 did not disclose ingredients of any offence. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 lived separately and they had no occasion to maltreat or harass the respondent for not bringing adequate dowry. The respondent had filed a written statement in the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending against her which belied her averments made in the complaint annexure P1. In fact the complaint was filed by the respondent as a counter blast to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. It is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised very sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. At this stage it is not to be seen whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or false and whether the same are belied by the averments made in the written statement filed to determine after the parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence. At present the only thing to be seen is whether on the basis of allegations in the complaint without adding or subtracting anything a cognizable offence is made out.

The respondent has specifically alleged in the complaint that at the time of her marriage, she was given various articles of dowry by her parents and other relatives and these articles were entrusted to the petitioners. The same constituted her Istri dhan and the petitioners were bound to return these articles to her but the petitioners misappropriated and converted the same to their own use. Along with the complaint, a detailed list of articles was annexed. The very fact that the petitioners alleged that while leaving her matrimonial home, the respondent took away gold ornaments and clothes will prima facie show that it was not a simple marriage as pleaded in the petition and some articles of dowry were given to the respondent. This fact is not denied by the petitioners that a cheque for Rs. 30,000/ was delivered to petitioner No. 1 by the parents of the respondent on 19th of September, 1990. The averments made in the complaint thus spelled out the ingredients of an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. It is not a case where all the family members of the husband were involved and specific averments were required to show as to what articles were entrusted to which of the accused. It is natural that the articles of dowry are entrusted to the husband or his parents on the occasion of marriage.

The averments regarding the cruel treatment meted out to respondent at the hands of the petitioners are also definite and specific. The respondent has given in detail how she was treated by the petitioners and on how many occasions she had to approach her parents for her rescue. There are specific allegations made in paras No. 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint regarding the demand of dowry articles like bedding, gas and refrigerator by petitioner No. 3 after consultation with petitioners No. 1 and 2. There are again specific allegations in paras No. 9, 10 and 11 of annexure P1 as to how the respondent was harassed and tortured by the petitioners with a view to compel her to meet their unlawful demands for more dowry. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegations made in the petition did not make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged in the complaint.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint was filed as a counter blast to the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner No. 1 against the respondent is also not tenable as the complaint annexure P1 was filed on 16th of June 1991 while the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was presented in Court on 30th of March 1991. Rather it is made out that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted as a counter blased and that does not affect the pendency of the complaint in any manner.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.