Sulochna Devi vs Sunita Rani

M.L. Singhal, J.

Sunita Rani was married to Kamal Sharma on 12.8.90 according to Hindu rites at Ludhiana. Jaswant Rai is fatherinlaw. Sulochna Devi is motherinlaw and Meenu is sisterinlaw i.e. husband''s sister of Sunita Rani. According to Smt. Suntia Rani, her marriage ran into rough weather because of harassment and cruelty being inflicted upon her by her husband, fatherinlaw mother in law and sisterinlaw. On 12.8.1990, the marriage of her cousin sister also took place at Ludhiana. It was a simple marriage performed in the absence of her parents without any prior programme. On 15.8.1990 about 40 persons came along with her at Patiala to at house of her parents where a sumptuous dinner was served to them and dowry articles and other gifts were given to her and her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw in the presence of relative and friends by her parents. At that time, her parents gave gifts to her also which were shown by her in Annexure attached to the complaint. Gifts made to her were entrusted to her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. Some of the items were also entrusted to her husband and her sisterinlaw as shown in the annexure attached to the complaint with details. At the time of such entrustment, it was made clear to them that these gifts were meant for her use and benefit and as and when she required to use them, those would be transferred to her as those gifts constituted dowry and her strdhan property. After marriage she co habited with her husband in the house jointly occupied by him, his father, mother and sister. After marriage, they did not feel satisfied with the dowry she had brought in marriage. They continued to maltreat her. They continued treating her with cruelty and laying demand for more and more dowry. Such an atmosphere was created by their cruel treatment that it became impossible for her to stay in the matrimonial home. She had to leave her matrimonial home. Her husband fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw deprived her of the use of articles of dowry which were for her exclusive use and which had been entrusted to them. After marriage, an attempt was made by her husband to kill her twice or thrice. She was given beating once when she was pregnant. Due to beating, she suffered abortion. On these allegations, Sunita Rani instituted complaint against her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw etc under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After holding preliminary enquiry into the allegationscomplaint, Mrs. Rekha Mittal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed againsts, the husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw under section 406/498A I.P.C. and, therefore, they were ordered to be summoned for trial. Qua sisterinlaw, complaint was dismissed.

Smt. Sulochna Devi motherinlaw has petitioned to this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that the complaint Annexure P1 be quashed qua her and also the order passed by the Magistrate Annexure P2 summoning her for trial and the proceedings taken subsequent thereto by the Magistrate be also quashed. It has been alleged that no offence under sections 406/498A is made out against her. It was a simple marriage where no dowry was given. It has nowhere been mentioned in the complaint as to which article was entrusted to which of the accused. There is no mention of date and time in the complaint when she was allegedly maltreated. In the complaint, there is no mention that demand was ever made by her for the return of the articles of dowry. Allegation made is that her Massi Ishwari Devi made demand on the accused for the return of the dowry article mentioned in Annexure attached to the complaint. Motherinlaw usually does not accompany the Barat and as such no entrustment is possible to the motherinlaw so far as articles of dowry are concerned. She never visited Patiala on 15.8.1990 and as such there was no question of entrustment of any article of dowry to her (Smt. Sulochna Devi). In the absence of entrustment, no offence under section 406, I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. Marriage took place at Ludhiana. Smt. Sunita Rani cohabited at Ludhiana. As such, no offence falling within the ambit of section 498A I.P.C. could take place at Patiala. When marriage took place at Ludhiana, articles of dowry, if any, were given at Ludhiana and as such, no offence falling within the ambit of section 406 I.P.C. took place at Patiala.

Smt. Sunita Rani put in reply in denial to the allegations made in this petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that marriage took place at Ludhiana. Parties cohabited at Ludhiana. If any offence took place, that took place at Ludhiana. It is true that if marriage took place at Ludhiana and articles of dowry were given at Ludhiana and cruel treatment took place at Ludhiana, Ludhiana Court alone would have jurisdiction. Patiala Court would not have jurisdiction. In support of this submission, Sh. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Jatinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1993(2) RCR 121 . In this case, however, the allegation of the wife is that on 12.8.90, simple marriage took place. On 15.8.1990, about 40 persons came to Patiala alongwith her to the house of her parents. A sumptuous dinner was served to them and the dowry articles and other gifts by relatives and friends were given to her and the accused in the presence of relatives and friends by her parents. At that time, parents of the complaint and relatives and friends gave gifts to her as shown in Annexure attached to the complaint and these were entrusted to her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. Some of the items were entrusted to her husband and sisterinlaw details whereof have been given in Annexure attached to the complaint. Allegation of the wife is, thus that no dowry was given on 12.8.90 when the marriage took place as marriage was gone through hurriedly and unexpectedly. It was on 15.8.1990 that a formal function took place at Patiala and at that function, dowry articles and gifts were given by her parents, relatives and friends to the bridegroom''s side. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that motherinlaw does not usually company the barat.

In this case, the allegation of the wife is that motherinlaw came to Patiala on 15.8.1990 accompanying 40 other persons to whom her parents served lavish dinner and gave dowry articlesarticles. Some of the dowry articles were entrusted to the motherinlaw and some to the fatherinlaw, husband and sisterinlaw. Wife has arraigned her husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw in the complaint filed under sections 406/498A I.P.C. and Sections 4, 4B, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the wife, husband, fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw constituted joint Hindu Family having common residence and common income. Magistrate has summoned the accused including motherinlaw on appreciation of preliminary evidence led by the wife before her. In a case reported as Provident Fund Inspector v. M/s Brake Lining Limited and another, 1990(1) RCR 490 relying upon Smt. Nagawa v. Veerana Shivaling Gappa, it was held that if the Magistrate has felt that there is a prima facie case made out and has passed an order summoning the accused for trial, the High Court or the Supreme Court is not to examine the case on merit with a view to find out whether or not allegations made in the complaint if proved would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. In Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal and others, 1992 Cr.L.J. 1956 it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal preceding only when the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. When the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence against any or all of the accused in the absence of materials on record to show that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court or would defeat the ends of justice, the High Court would not be justified in quashing the complaint." Principle of law that emerges, therefore, is that if the Magistrate has found the existence of a prima facie case on going though the preliminary evidence led by the complaint in support of the allegation of the complaint and has summoned the accused, the High Court in the exercise of powers vesting in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not quash the complaint and the summoning order. In Malhar Singh v. Johar Singh and another, 1991(1) Revenue Law Reporter 323 it was held that the High Court will exercise inherent powers vesting in it under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings only when the allegations made in the complaint prima facie do not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused.

In this case, the petitioner is not helpless. After appearing before the Magistrate, she can make an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and pray that complaint be quashed against her and the summoning order be reviewed so far as she is concerned. If the Magistrate refuses to accept the prayer of Smt. Sulochna Devi at that stage, Sulochna Devi can pray to the Magistrate after the evidence led by the complainant is recorded in her presence that there is no convincing evidence warranting the framing of charge against her and, therefore, she be discharged. Magistrate could go only on the allegations made in the complaint coupled with the preliminary evidence led before her, before passing an order summoning or declining to summon the accused. As to whether the dowry articles were or were not given or if dowry articles were given, whether those were given at Patiala or at Ludhiana is all question of evidence. It is not a stage when the merits of the complaint can be examined closely and thoroughly. Merits of the complaint can be examined closely and thoroughly after evidence is led by the complainant in support of the allegations of the complaint in the presence of the accused for the framing of the charge.

For the reasons given above, I do not think it is a case where complaint or order passed by the Magistrate summoning Smt. Sulochna Devi can be quashed. So, this criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is dismissed.