Sarbjit Singh and anrs vs Sarbjit Singh

G. S. Chahal, J.

Sarabjit Singh and his mother have come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated January 22, 1987 Annexure P2. order dated January 22, 1987 Annexure P3 and order dated October 6, 1990 and all consequent proceedings.

The facts as alleged in the complaint Annexure P 2 may be briefly enumerated.

Dhanwant Kaur a sister of complainantrespondent was married to Sarabjit Singh petitioner on October 13, 1980 at village Lahra (Gharuan) by means of the Anandkaraj ceremony. Betrothal ceremony and Rok ceremony had been performed earlier. Dhanwant Kaur lived with her husband at her inlaws house at Patiala till December 16, 1980. It was a close relation of the petitioner who took Dhanwant Kaur to her parents house and left her there on December 16, 1980 on the pretex that she shall be taken back a few days thereafter. She had brought only a small attachecase with her under the mistaken impression that she will be shortly returning to her husband''s house. All the dowry articles and ornaments had been left behind, by her at her inlaws house. After the expiry of 11/2 months, Dhanwant Kaur was served with a notice of petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This petition was based on unfounded and frivolous grounds for getting the marriage annulled. This petition was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31.3.84 and the appeal against the order as well as the Letters Patent Appeal were also dismissed on 21.2. 85 and 17.4.86 respectively as the allegations had been found to be false. That at the time of Rok ceremony, articles described in paras 13 and 14 and at the time of Betrothal ceremony articles described in paras 15, 16 and 17 had been given to the husband and his family members. That at the time of marriage, dowry articles described in para 18 and 20 had been given The parents of the husband had given ornaments and ceremonial garments described in para 19 at the time of marriage of Dhanwant Kaur. After the marriage, articles described in paras 21 and 22 had been given at the time of visits to the house of the husband. Details were also given of other articles given as dowry. That the trouble arose when sometimes after the marriage, father of Dhanwant Kaur expressed his inability to fulfil the demand for a car in connection with the marriage. That all articles of dowry were in possession of the petitioners and their relations and had not been returned inspite of the demands It was, thus, claimed that offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been committed. The petitioners were summoned for offences under sections 406 and 498A IPC. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioners moved an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge which application was dismissed vide order dated October 9, 1990.

Mr. Sarwan Singh, who appears for the petitioner has alleged that the complaint for offence under Section 406IPC was barred by time and offence under Section 98A IPC having been introduced subsequent to the parting of Dhanwant Kaur from her husband, the provisions could not be extended.

So far as the argument of the learned counsel with respect to offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the question has been authoritatively settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Balram Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur and another, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 404 : ILR 1992(1) Punjab and Haryana 347. It was held that offence under Section 406 IPC is a continuing offence. In view of this judgment, every demand will give a new cause of action and the trial for offence under Section 406 IPC cannot be held to be barred by application of Section 408, Cr.P.C. The charge under Section 406 IPC, thus, cannot be quashed as prayed by the petitioner.

The second objection of the learned counsel, however, has force. it is the definite case of the complainant that Dhanwant Kaur was left at her parents house on December 16, 1980 and thereafter there had litigation between the parties, There is no allegaiton that at any subsequent stage, Dhanwant Kaur had returned to her inlaws'' house where she was subjected to cruelty.

Section 498A IPC was introduced by Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983 and it came into force on Decembers 25, 1983. The provision cannot be given effect to retrospectively.

I also draw support to my finding from the observations of P. L. Sethuraman J in Prasanna Kumar v. Dhanlaxmi and ors., 1989 Cr. L. J. 1829.

I, thus, quash the complaint for offence under Section 498A IPC qua the petitioners.

Trial for offence under Section 405 IPC will proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on November 1, 1993. With there directions, this petition is disposed of.