Sham Lal and ors. vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

Sham Lal husband of Usha Rani deceased and other petitioner have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR 204 dated 13.8.1981 Police Post. A Division Amritsar, which was registered on the application of Ramesh Kumar brother of the deceased. The allegations mentioned in the FIR are reproduced as under :

"To the Senior Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police, Amritsar.

Subject : Request for lodging of FIR under Section 406, 420 IPC against the following accused of police station `A Division, Ram Bagh, Amritsar at the instance of complainant petitioner.

Sir,

The applicant petitioner submits as under :

1) That the complainantpetitioner is the real brother of his unfortunate sister Usha (now deceased) and petitioner is resident of 164/1 Rai Dass Road, near Hall Bazar, Amritsar, that the marriage of my sister Usha was performed according to Hindu customs and rites at our residence i.e. Ravi Dass Road, Amritsar with Sham Lal, S/o Lachhman Dass of Village Gagar Bhana, District Amritsar on 11580 and on the occasions of Thaka Shagan and marriage ceremony the articles mentioned in the attached list marks were given to the accused party and in all about 40 or 45 thousands of rupees were spent the marriage with the assistance of relations and well wishers. That dowry articles were entrusted to the following accused in the presence of PWs Vichola Arjan Dev, Om Prakash, Arwind Verma etc. 1) Sham Lal s/o Lachhman Dass of V. Gagar,Bhana now resident of Ward No. 3 house No. 8 Jogipura Budaun, (U.P.) 2) Ashok Kumar, s/o Lachhman Dass, ....do.... 3) lachhman Dass (Father) ....do.... 4) Satya Devi (Mother) .... 5) Bhaima Bhai (father''s sister) do That after the marriage the parties to the marriage (my sister and her husband) lived at Gagar Bhana where her inlaws resided. As the great greed of dowry is a menace to society and the accused are not exceptions, so they were not satisfied with the dowry already given.

That to put pressure upon Usha that her brothers must give scooter, television, and other articles on that account she has maltreated and turned out from the house. But later on the matter was patched up with the intervention of Vichola Arjan Dev s/o Bodh Raj and others and we gave Rs. 5000/ to the accused and she was sent to her inlaws'' house. That after some time the accused went to Badaun (U.P.) alongwith Usha and those from there we got the information that Usha is expired. We went to Badaun and lodged the FIR No. 667/81 under Section 302 IPC against the accused parties and she was set at fire by them. That had not returned our dowry articles. That they committed the offence under Section 406/420 IPC as their intention was to deceive and cheat us and with that criminal intention they have criminally misappropriated the dowry articles above. So kindly register FIR under Section 406/420 IPC against above all accused at P.S. `A'' Division Amritsar and take local action against them.

Sd/

Ramesh Kumar 164/1 Ravi Dass Road,

Hall Bazar, Amritsar,

Dated 2471981".

This petition was allowed by this Court on July 12, 1982 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi and ors. v. State of Punjab, 1982(1), Chandigarh Law Reporter 638. State of Punjab filed a criminal appeal No. 574 of 1983 in the Supreme Court which was allowed on March 12, 1992 and the petition has been remanded to this court for deciding the case afresh after hearing the parties.

Mr. Vinit Kumar Advocate, for the petitioners, has contended that Sham lal husband of deceased Usha Rani is entitled to retain the dowry articles in view of Section 15 of the Succession Act, 1956. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, relates to the succession in the case of a female Hindu and reads as under :

"Section 15(1) : The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16 :

a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband;

b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husbands;

c) thirdly, upon the mother and father,"

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that Ramesh Kumar brother of Usha Rani deceased and the parents of Ramesh Kumar are not entitled to retain the dowry articles, therefore, the FIR lodged against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. In support of his argument he has relied upon Nirmal Kaur v. Balbir Singh and ors., 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports page 49, Mangat Ram v. State of haryana and anr. 1988(2), Recent Criminal Reports page 349, and Ajit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab 1983, Chandigarh Criminal Cases 116(HC).

Mr. N.s. Boparai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that Sham Lal husband of deceased Usha Rani is not entitled to retain the articles because Usha Rani was killed on the night between 3/4 July, 1981 at 4.30 a.m. in Mohalla Jogipura, Police Station Kotwali Budaun and a case under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code has been registered against Sham Lal and four others vide FIR No. 667 of 1981. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which reads as under :

"Section 25 : A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of a person murdered or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has repelled the argument of Mr. N.S. Boparai and has submitted that Sham Lal and four others have been acquitted by Sh. Hem Raj Ram, Second Additional Sessions Judge. Budaun, on 19th of March, 1986 therefore, Sham Lal being husband of Usha Rani deceased, is entitled to retain the dowry articles.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that Sham Lal alone is entitled to the estate of Usha Rani deceased and he is entitled to retain the dowry articles, Sham Lal petitioner No. 1 has not been held guilty for the murder of Usha Rani, therefore, Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the dowry articles were retained by the husband after the death of his wife, no offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. The FIR is liable to be quashed.

In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 204 dated 1381981 is quashed.