Sheela Devi and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Smt. Sheela Devi, petitioner 1, along with her husband Satnam Singh, petitioner2 and their son Gurcharan Singh, petitioner3 have preferred this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR 136 dated 5.9.1991, Annexure P1, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana for offences u/s 406 and 498A, IPC. The impugned FIR was registered on the application of Smt. Surinder Kaur respondent 2 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana wherein she complained that her marriage was performed with Jitpal Singh on 7.9.1986, at Ludhiana by Anand Karaj. Her husband was living jointly with his parents. At the time of marriage, a huge amount was spent by her parents. The articles, listed in Annexure A, were entrusted to Jitpal Singh and his parents at the time of departure of Barat, with the specific request that they would pass on the same as and when required by her. At the time of Doli the complainant was made to wear ornaments, gifted to her by her in laws. On the next day, the same were got recovered from her by petitioner1. Petitioner3 is also married at Ludhiana. 2/3 days after the marriage, he started making remarks that as compared to his own inlaws, the inlaws of Jitpal Singh spent little amount and the dowry given was not to the petitioners'' satisfaction. Jitpal Singh also started taunting her for bringing less dowry. About a month after the marriage, Jitpal Singh and his parents started pressurising respondent 2 for bringing a car, but she told them that the parents were not in a position to give a car, as dowry. They then started maltreating her. At that time Jitpal Singh gave her a beating. On 28.7.87 her father visited her in laws'' house and tried to prevail upon Jitpal Singh and her parents in law not to harass her and also to forgo their demand for a car. However, they still persisted on their demand for car, She was then brought to Ludhiana by her parents on 29.7.87. Thereafter Jitpal Singh did not make any effort to bring respondent2 back to matrimonial home although an effort was made by her parents with the help of respectables. On the request of her father and other common friends. Jitpal Singh and his parents and brother visited Ludhiana on 25.12.88 to settle the matter. An offer was made with respect to an old and secondhand FIAT car of her father but it was not accepted. It was, thus, claimed that the petitioners and Jitpal Singh had committed criminal breach of trust of the dowry articles of respondent 2.

According to the allegations made in the application to the SSP, the dowry articles were entrusted to Jitpal Singh and his parents jointly. In this situation, the articles were with her husband. So far as the allegations against the present petitioners are concerned, the same are of vague nature. Complainant''s marriage having been disrupted, for some reasons, she has tried to implicate all the close relatives of her husband. Even petitioner3 to whom no entrustment is alleged, the allegations are of his making remarks about inadequate dowry, has been arrayed as one of the accusedpersons. Jitpal Singh had brought a petition u/s 9, Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the complainantrespondent2 and the complaint appears to be a counter blast to those proceedings. Annexure P3 is the memo relating to the recovery of articles of dowry by the Police from Jitpal Singh. It is signed by both Smt. Surinder Kaur and Jitpal Singh. The dispute with respect to the dowry articles is confined to Jitpal Singh & respondent 2. Petitioners 1 to 3, who are parents and brother of the husband respectively, have been implicated just to put pressure on him and as such, the prosecution amounts to abuse of process of the court.

The impugned FIR also contains the allegations of some harassment to respondent2 during her stay at her in laws'' house at Ropar. One of the allegations is against Jitpal Singh about giving beating. Even if the allegations may be taken for granted to make out a case for an offence u/s 498A, IPC the Police at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR against petitioners1 to 3 only.