Shalu and another vs State of Haryana and another

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 105 dated 9.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police

Station Narnaud, District Hisar (Annexure P-1) registered on the statement made by respondent No. 2 and all the consequent proceedings arising

out of the same.

Petitioner No. 1 is the jethani whereas petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law (nanad) who are facing trial in the above FIR.

I have heard both the sides.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing trial on the allegations which are bald and baseless and they have no role to

play in the matrimonial life of the complainant and petitioner No. 1 is the married sister-in-law while petitioner No. 2 is the unmarried sister-in- law

(now married) and the allegations are general in nature and the police should not have even filed the challan and they cannot be asked to endure the

long trial. It was urged that marriage had taken place in November 2013 and the couple started living separately in a rented accommodation from

March 2014 and she left the rented accommodation in May 2014 and the FIR was lodged subsequently. The counsel urges that allegations are

that the complainant was beaten mercilessly but there is no MLR nor any photograph was filed along with the challan. It was urged that the

complainant was pursuing her M.A. course and she had completed her education during that period and wanted to live separately and therefore

had separated.

State counsel informs that investigation was over and challan had been filed and charge had been framed and some of the witnesses have been

examined and it is for the trial Court to see whether the allegations are found to be true.

Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that they have already filed their reply and the same may be taken as submissions from their side. It was

also contended that there were allegations that the petitioners had beaten the complainant.

Before proceeding further it is necessary to notice the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court

Cases 335 which read 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

under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.

In Harjinder Kaur and others versus State of Punjab 2004(4) R.C.R (Criminal) 332 it was held that even though challan had been filed and

charge had been framed yet there was no absolute bar to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as each case has to be examined on its

own facts.

In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 695 (SC) : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their Lordships have

observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens the case of the prosecution even

against the real accused.

In Ramesh Kumar and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 68 (SC) in which their Lordships while quashing the

proceedings against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in a many relations of the

husband.

In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 45 the Hon''ble Apex Court observed as under:

It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country

including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people

of the society.

The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a

woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to

fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, ''cruelty'' means :-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial

issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique

motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or

demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the

complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must

maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to

help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure

that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead

to multiple cases.

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such

complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in

majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the

conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these

complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband''s

close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an

entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals

that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of

common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband''s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it

would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a

matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over

implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep

scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous

social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic

realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and

the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this

judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon''ble Minister for Law &

Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.

There is no hard and fast rule that proceedings cannot be quashed after the filing of challan or even after framing of charge. It all depends upon

the facts of each case. The present case is a classic example where the complainant has made wild sweeping allegations against the lady members

of the family. It has been seen that a tendency has developed for roping all the relations in dowry case. The complainant has given a role to each of

the petitioners when she was beaten up. As per the allegations, brutal force was used upon her but there is no MLR. There are no photographs

showing injuries. It is a fit case where the criminal proceedings should be put to an end as against the petitioners. This Court is not expected to be a

silent spectator when it is made out that the criminal proceedings are abuse of the process of the Court.

Taking into consideration the totality and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and following the rationale of the judgments referred

above including Preeti Gupta''s case (supra), the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings

arising thereof qua the petitioners are quashed.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed.