Sita Ram vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Sita Ram, his wife Smt. Prem Lata, son Ganga Dhar, Suman wife of Ganga Dhar, Sunil son of Sita Ram, and Rama wife of Sunil have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of FIR No. 135 dated 13.8.1996 under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 IPC registered in Police Station City Dadri, District Bhiwani against the State of Haryana and Smt. Bindu, daughter of Ganga Ram, alleging that the aforesaid FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with an oblique motive to pressurize, harass and humiliate the petitioners.

FIR in this case was lodged on the statement of Smt. Bindu, respondent No. 2 under Section 498A IPC and the major allegations of the FIR can be described in the following manner : Smt. Bindu stated that her marriage was solemnised on 30.11.1995 with Satish Kumar (nonapplicant). Her Jeth Ganga Dhar, Jethani Suman were exerting pressure upon her father for spending more and more money. As the date of marriage was approaching fast, her fatherinlaw, Sita Ram, her Jeth Ganga Dhar and her Jethani Suman started demanding more dowry. It has also been alleged by the complainant that at the time of her marriage and Teeka, the demand of aforesaid persons went up to Rs. 1,00,000/ in cash and other valuable things such as Fridge, Colour TV, and VCR etc. In pursuance to this demand, her father gave Rs. 1,00,000/ in cash and other valuable articles to her inlaws under pressure in the form of gifts. Likewise at the time of marriage the aforesaid persons tried to extract more cash.

It has been specifically alleged by the complainant that after the marriage when she reached Mohindergarh, then after seeing the articles of marriage she was taunted and they (aforesaid persons) used to hurl abusive language regarding her parents. Whatever was her cash and personal articles those were also snatched by her motherinlaw, Prem Lata, fatherinlaw Sita Ram, Jeth Ganga Dhar and Jethani Suman. For the purpose of this order the above allegations would be sufficient for me to dispose of the controversy. In the same lengthy FIR Smt. Bindu alleged that her Jethani Rama and Jeth Sunil Kumar harassed and planned to declare her as lunatic.

The submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that FIR visavis the present petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as there are no specific allegations constituting the offences much less under Section 498A IPC. It was also submitted by Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts at Dadri, and Dadri Police had no jurisdiction to register the FIR and try the case and the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant, it arose at Mohindergarh.

In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court titled State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supreme Court 604, the following guidelines were given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court :

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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) Whether 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 not 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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 this regard guideline No. 1 is very important for the purpose of the present case in which it is stated that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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, the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked.

Reverting to the allegations of the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that in so far as the petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 namely Sunil and Smt. Rama are concerned, the allegations of Smt. Bindu are vague in its nature and prima facie do not constitute any offence visavis the two petitioners and the attempt of the police as well as of the complainant to implicate them in the criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of law and therefore, this Court should invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Visavis the case of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 totally stand on different footings. I have already reproduced some of the allegations against these persons. It is the consistent case of the complainant that even before her marriage with her husband, there was a demand of dowry which was primarily prompted by these four petitioners and even after the marriage these were the persons who prima facie constituted an offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. This Court is not in a position to agree with the submissions raised by Shri Singla, counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against these four persons are also vague. Earlier submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit that Dadri Court had no jurisdiction. The cruelty is not only physical but also mental within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Turning out of bride from the matrimonial home compelling her to reside in the house of her parents is also an act of cruelty.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed partly. The proceedings against Sunil Kumar and Smt. Rama petitioners are hereby quashed irrespective of the fact that the charge has been framed against them. However so far as the petition of petitioners No. 1 to 4 is concerned it is hereby dismissed.