Santosh and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ''Cr.P.C.'') for quashing the FIR No. 194 dated 22.8.2007, under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC''), Police Station Julana, DistrictJind and consequent proceedings arising therefrom including the framing of charge.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioner Nos. 3 & 4.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. However, keeping in view their age the personal appearance of petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 before the trial Court shall remain exempted subject to the following conditions :

(i) Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 shall be represented through counsel; (ii)shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute their identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had been falsely involved in this case due to their relationship with Shyam, husband of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner No. 2 was married to the sister of respondent No. 2. The matrimonial dispute arose between them and they have got decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of elder brother of the husband of respondent No. 2 and is residing separately with her children.

The FIR qua Nirmala daughter of Karan Singh sister of respondent No. 2 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-8).

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties carefully and I am of the opinion that the petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be allowed.

The allegations against petitioners No. 1 and 2 as per the FIR reads as under :

...Accused No. 2 demanded that I should bring a safari suit and a woolen sheet of Dhariwal make. Accused No. 3 demanded a gold ring while accused No. 5 and 6 raised a demand for bringing woolen suits from my father and said that in case if did not bring the same, they will not allow me to live there. As my father was a poor man, he could not give the said articles in dowry due to which all the accused started harassing, taunting and beating the applicant by saying that the girl belongs to a poor family.

...Accused No. 2 also misbehaved with me and accused No. 1, 2 and 4 threatened me that in case, I do not bring dowry from my father''s house as per their demand, they will kill me by electrocuting me. The atrocities of the accused continued and sometimes accused No. 1 and 4 tied me and gave beatings to me while accused No. 5 and 6 gave beatings to me by catching hold of me from my hair. I, taking into consideration the poor condition of my father, continued to undergo the atrocities.

...On 20th May, 2007 accused No. 2 got hold of me and accused No. 1 gave beatings to me with a Danda. While accused No. 4 and 5 gave beatings to me by catching hold of me from my hair.

...Due to the grudge of that application, accused No. 1, 2, Surender and Manjeet gave beatings to my brother with Lathi, Danda and Saria. In this regard, FIR No. 107 dated 24.5.2007 was registered at Police Station Ganaur against accused No. 1, 2 Surender and Manjeet etc.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

A perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal that so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he had raised a demand of a safari suit and a woolen suit whereas petitioner No. 1 had raised a demand of woolen suit, and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had also given beatings to the respondent No. 2. The allegations of beatings and atrocities are highly vague. It appears that petitioner No. 1 who is a widow of the elder brother of Shyam, husband of respondent No. 2, has been merely involved in this case due to her relationship with Shyam. The said petitioner is allegedly residing separately. On similar allegations FIR qua Nirmala has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P-8). So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it appears that he might have been falsely involved in this case as he was also having a matrimonial dispute with his wife who is the real sister of respondent No. 2. Now petitioner No. 2 has got a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent vide order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure P-7).

In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that FIR in question has been lodged against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only to harass them being relatives of husband of complainant and the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, this petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed.

The FIR No. 194 dated 22.8.2007, under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 34 of IPC, Police Station Julana, DistrictJind and consequent proceedings, arising therefrom qua petitioners No. 1 & 2, are quashed.