Sudhir Kumar and ors. vs State of Punjab and another

V.K. Jhanji, J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R, No. 162 dated 24.9.1990, P.S. Civil Lines, Ludhiana, under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. and seeking further quashing of proceedings in the Court as a result of challan submitted by the police against the petitioners and one Ranbir Singh on the basis of aforementioned First Information Report.

This petition was allowed by G.S. Chahal, J. (as he then was) on 3.6.1992 and in consequence thereof. First Information Report along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the charges framed against the petitioners were quashed. Aggrieved of the order of this Court, the complainant filed Criminal Appeals No. 333334 of 1994 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 10.5.1994, allowed the appeals and has remanded the case to this Court for disposing it of in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the judgment.

In brief, the facts are that Ranbir Singh son of Ram Dass got married to one Minakshi Bala daughter of Girdhari Lal on 8.2.1987, It has been alleged in the First Information Report that at the time of marriage, parents of Minakshi Bala gave dowry to Ranbir Singh and his father beyond their means and status. The details of the dowry given at the time of marriage have been mentioned in the First Information Report. Further, it has been stated by the complainant that when the marriage party came to (sic) wife Satya Devi, her husband''s elder brother''s wife namely Devyanti and Kusum and her husband''s elder brother, Sudhir, started saying that T.V. and Fridge have not been given. Her motherinlaw removed two golden sets, her husband''s elder brother''s wife Devyanti removed four golden bangles and Kusum, elder brother''s wife removed a pair of earrings besides four expensive suits and four sarees which were removed by Rekha, another elder brother''s wife without her consent. The Maruti car given to her by her parents was taken by Sudhir, her husband''s elder brother, but after her marriage, she was tormented for bringing insufficient dowry. She was beaten up many a times despite her repeated pleadings that her parents could not afford to fulfil their demands. She gave birth to two daughters, on which they got further annoyed and she was turned out of the house on 13.6.1990 after being beaten and taking away the daughters from her. Her youngest daughter at that time was six months'' old and used to take her breast milk, but her custody was not given to her in spite of her request that the child would not be able to live without mother and this resulted into death of her daughter, about which she was not informed, nor called for funeral. She has further alleged in the First Information Report that the accused have refused to return her property and articles. On the basis of the First Information Report and statements of the witnesses made under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, challan was presented against the petitioners and Ranbir Singh, her husband and report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framed charges against the petitioners and Ranbir Singh, under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. Petitioners feeling aggrieved against the framing of charges, filed petition in this Court for quashing of First Information Report, report of the Police under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and also the charges framed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petition was allowed on 3.6.1992 and First Information Report qua the petitioners along with report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and charges framed thereon, were quashed.

Feeling aggrieved, complainant took the matter to Supreme Court in an appeal and the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.5.1994, allowed the same, thereby remanding the case to this Court for decision.

Mr. S.C. Mohuhta, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, has contended that on reading of the First Information Report, no offence under Section 406/498A, I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. He further contended that there is no specific allegation about entrustment of specific articles of dowry to any particular accused. His other contention was that the petitioners have never treated the complainant with cruelty and never maltreated nor forced to bring more dowry.

Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition. It has come in the First Information Report that the marriage took place on 8.2.1987 at Ludhiana and the wife was subjected to both physical as well as mental cruelty so as to force her to bring more dowry. Particulars of the articles given at the time of marriage have been given in the First Information Report, wherein it has been specifically averred that articles were taken into custody by the petitioners. It has also been specifically averred in the First Information Report that "they have refused to return me my properties and articles. I am out of fear. I am living with my brothers." In a large number of cases, it has been held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R., the High Court will have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same. In the present case, clear allegations of taking the property into custody by the petitioners, which actually belongs to the wife, have been made in the First Information Report. It is not the case of the petitioners that the property belongs to them. Rather the property, in respect of which breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, is the property belonging to the wife. Petitioners were holding the property in trust for her. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court would not be justified in quashing the First Information Report at this stage. I am further of the view that the petitioners cannot make any grievance against the framing of charges because the same have been framed by the Court on the basis of material and evidence. The judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, reported in A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 867, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1499 and 2185, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 47, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 326, A.I.R. 1902(2) S.C. 949, 1989(1) R.C.R. 1 & 278, 1990(3), RCR 183, 1991(1) R.C.R. 630, 1992(1) R.C.R. 187, 329, 357, 363 & 682 and 1993(3) R.C.R. 365, are of no help to him being clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

Consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed. Any observation given herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.