Satya Bir Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Satya Bir Singh, his father Ram Singh mother Parmeshwari Devi and sister Rajo Devi have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 186 recorded at Police Station Butana on 3.3.1990 under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The impugned First Information Report was lodged by Sushma Devi wife of Satya Bir Singh alleging that she was married to Satya Bir Singh on 25.6.1982 according to Hindu rites at Tarwari. At the time of her marriage her parents spent about Rs. 50,000/ and give sufficient dowry but the petitioners were not satisfied and time and again they pressured her to bring money and more articles such as the scooter and the refrigerator. When she expressed her helplessness to fulfil the demand of the petitioners she was given beating and was subjected to electric shocks. Sometimes she brought money from her parents without the knowledge of her brothers which the petitioners retained. She was treated well for a short time but the petitioners resorted to some cruel acts and threatened to kill her. He left the house of the petitioners alongwith her daughter as her life was in danger.

The petitioners alleged that after marriage the complainant resided with them happily for a short time and when Satya Bir Singh petitioner No. 1 joined service he resumed separate residence with his wife and there was no occasion for any bickering between Sushma Rani and the other petitioners. Sushma Rani gave birth to two children and in December, 1980 she went to her parents'' house to attained to her brother''s wife who was expecting a child. Petitioner No. 1 paid two/three visits to her to fetch her to her matrimonial home but she put him off on the ground that her brother''s wife was not quite well. Ultimately when she did not return, a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counterblast Sushma Rani lodged the impugned First Information Report Annexure P1. It was further pleaded that the First Information Report did not disclose any offence because the allegations were quite vague and indefinite and there was nothing to suggest as to what articles of dowry were entrusted to which of the petitioners and at what time.

In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were denied and it was contended that because of inadequacy of dowry the respondent was maltreated and was turned out of the house.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

I was argued on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner Satya Bir Singh was employed as a watchman at Ferozepur Zirka since August, 1988 and his old parents were residing separately in village Khadwali and there was no occasion for them to maltreat Sushma Rani or pressurize her to bring any article of dowry from her parents. In fact parents of Sushma Rani were unable to give any dowry and this fact was known to the petitioners at the time of the marriage itself. Sushma Rani had nine brothers and sisters and it was hard for her parents to maintain such a big family, so, question of demanding any dowry from them did not arise. In fact Sushma Rani was leading a happy life and she had given birth to two children but when she went to attend her brother''s wife, and did not return petitioner No. 1 had to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She lodged a report with the police as a counterblast after about 8 years of her marriage with Satya Bir Singh. It was further contended that allegation in the First Information Report were quite vague and there were no specific averments as to what specific articles of dowry were given and to which of the petitioners were the same entrusted. It was no where stated that those articles were demanded from the petitioners but the refused to return the same. Allegations regarding cruelty were also quite vague and it was not disclosed as to who gave beating to Sushma Rani and at what occasion and who subjected her to electric shocks. The offence under Sections 498A, if any, was committed at Rohtak and the police of District Karnal was not competent to investigate the allegations in that respect.

It is now well settled that in order to quash the First Information Report or complaint, only the allegations set out in the First Information report or complaint have to be considered and taken at their face value for deciding whether such allegations constitute any offence. If from such allegations no specific offence against a particular accused is made out and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned First Information Report or complaint amount to abuse of the process of the court then the same is liable to be quashed. A perusal of the First Information Report Annexure P1 shows that no specific averments regarding entrustment of any article of dowry to any one of the petitioners is made therein. There is also no demand by Sushma Rani at any point of time. It is not mentioned that the petitioners were retaining the articles for their own use and they refused to return the same to the complainant. The allegations taken on their face value do not constitute or spell out any offence. It is rather made out that as petitioner No. 1 moved application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights Sushma Rani lodged First Information Report as a counter blast. The averments regarding cruelty are also vague and indefinite. There are no specific particulars of cruelty regarding time, place and manner be beating. In these circumstances resorting to the criminal proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

For the foregoing reasons in the petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report (Annexure P1) and the consequent proceedings taken thereon against the petitions are quashed.