Subhash Chander Dhawan and ors. vs Jyoti

G. S. Chahal, J.

Subbash Chander Dhawan and others thereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal complaint dated February 14, 1991 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar (Annexure P1) and the summoning order dated Match 20, 1991 passed by Sh. M. S. Virdi, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar (Annexure P2). The complaint has been filed by Smt. Jyoti, respondent.

The allegations on which the petitioners have been prosecuted may be drawn from the complaint Annexure P1.

Smt. Jyoti, respondent, was married to Subhash Chander Dhawan on February 13, 1989 according to Hindu rites. Smt. Chand Rani and Manohar Lal Dhawan are the parents; Rajinder Kumar Dhawan is the brother and Smt. Rama is the sister of Subhash Chander Dhawan. At the time of; carriage, a huge dowry consisting of jewellery, utensils, clothes, furniture etc : were given to the petitioners in the presence of the relatives of both the parties. Annexure A attached with the complaint is the list of the dowry articles. All these articles were accepted by the petitioners in the presence of the witnesses and were taken by them to their house. It had been clearly conveyed by the parents of the respondent that these articles were made for her exclusive use as Istri Dhan which were being entrusted to them. Out of this wed lock. a still born child was born Soon after the marriage, her husband started maltreating her. All the petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry articles given and they were harsh and cruel towards her. They also taunted her for not bringing colour TV, VCR. The petitioners had also made certain gifts at the time of marriage, which are contained in AnnexureB. In June, 1989, the respondent was mercilessly beaten by her husband and her parents got her admitted to the Ladies Hospital in Dhab Khatikan, Amritsar, where Dr. (Mrs.) Chawala told her that there was no option but to abort the child. As result thereof, the respondent lost the child which was in her womb. After the birth of this still born child, she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial home. Subsequently, however'', the matter was compromised with. the intervention of the respectables. However, the behaviour of the petitioners towards her did not change, though her parents made many gifts on various occasions. On various occasions, she was turned out of the house, but. rehabilitated at. the intervention of the respectables. On December 1, 1989, the petitioner tried to kill the respondent by sprinkling kerosene oil on her which fell on her legs and she saved her life by running out of the house. Her articles of Istri Dhan had not been returned to her in spite of the demands.

Mr. D. S. Pheruman, who appears for the petitioners, has urged that the allegations against the petitioners were vague andan attempt has been made by the respondents to implicate all the close, relations of the husband.

So far as Subhash Chander Dhawan, petitioner No. 1, is concerned there are specific allegations of maltreatment, and also acceptance of gifts at the time of marriage. The marriage was solemnised in February 1989 and till June 1989, the husband and wife had definitely livid together. During this period, both of them must have received. back all the articles of dowry. The allegations in the complaint are vague as it does not describe that any specific articles were entrusted to any of the petitioners 2 to 5, who are the close relations of the husband. Even the allegations of maltreatment are also vague. No details of any occurrence are given. In 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 81 : 1991 Marriage Law `Journal'', (Vol.XIV) page 4 1 7, Pawan Kumar and. ors. Punjab State. Sekhon, I J. dealing with a similar situation quashed the FIR against the brothers of the husband as the allegations regarding entrustment of the property were vague. In Angrez Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab and ors., 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 53 : 1991 Marriage Law Journal (Vol. XIV) 436. Bedi, J. quashed the complaint is it suffered from vagueness so far as the entrust the dowry articles was concerned. I subscribe to the same view. If any articles forming part of the dowry remained at the house of respondent''s husband. it is only be and he alone who is liable for misappropriation. The marriage of the respondent with her husband Subhash Chander Dhawan having gone to the rocks, she has made an effort to throw a wide so as to involve all the close relations of her husband by making a general allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to them. ''Continuation of these proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5 will amount to ''abuse of process of Court. While dismissing the petition qua ''petitioner No. 1. Subhash Chander Dhawan I allow the petition qua petitioners 2 to 5 and quash the complaint Annexure P1 and summoning order.

Annexure P2 passed against them.