Surinder Singh alias Shinder and ors. vs Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and anr.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Surinder Singh alias Shinder, petitioner1 and his parents Ishar Singh and Smt Shamsher Kaur, petitioners2 and 3 have moved this criminal miscellaneous under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing for FIR No. 175 dated 13789. registered at Police Station East, Sector 26, Chandigarh for offences under Sees. 406, 420, and 498A, IPC, Annexure P1 and also the orders and charge sheets dated 28490 and 23490, passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Chandigarh, Annexures P2 and P3 respectively.

The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of an application by Smt Satnam Kaur to the Senior Supdt. of Police, UT Chandigarh. According to the allegations made by her, her marriage with Surinder Singh was performed at village Khanpur on 14986. Before marriage, Surinder Singh had assured that he was a bachelor and graduate and US Green Card Holder. Shagan ceremony was performed on 13986. Dowry, gifts and other articles were given, as per Annexures A, B and C. It was learned by her that Surinder Singh was, in fact, not a graduate and was already married to an American national. When petitioner1 and his parents petitioners2 and 3 were confronted with this fact. they and Narinder Singh elder brother of petitioner1, also a Green Card Holder in USA, undertook to get divorce from the American lady, if complainant''s mother was ready to give another sum of Rs. 50 tow 60 thousands Narinder Singh stood guarantee for the same. Both Narinder Singh and petitioner1 thereafter left for the USA, and she continued living with her in laws at Chandigarh Her salary was also taken away from her every month by her inlaws. Her parents inlaw also removed her bridal clothes; a set of gold buttons. as also two gold bangles, from an almirah, but they promised to make good the loss if she, kept quiet. Some time in January/February 1988, petitioner I returned from the USA and invited her telling that he had obtained divorce. Another marriage ceremony was then gone through at Chandigarh. The marriage was got registered with the registering authority at Chandigarh The documents of divorce regarding'' dissolution of first marriage of petitioner1 were placed on the file at the time of registration of her marriage with him, at Chandigarh. Her mother paid Rs. 15,000/petitioner I to enable him to purchase a TV set. He, however, made a further demand of Rs. 50,000/ to 60,000/ but her mother refused to pay the same. On different occasions, such as Akhand Path and a marriage, her gold ornaments were taken on one pretext or the other, but, subsequently these were not returned to her. Her parentsinlaw made open demands for money in presence of people visiting her and also gave out threats, that without the cash demands being met she would not be allowed to live in her matrimonial home. Petitioner1 left for the USA in June/July 1988 and had told her that she would not be recognised as his wife unless she brought Rs. 60,000/ to Rs. 70,000/ After his departure, She was forced to return to her parents house and ever since then, she has been living there. Her motherinlaw had returned from USA and it was at her instigation, that petitioner 1 had no talk with her on telephone or written any letter. The articles of dowry, forming Istridhan, were given to her at the time of marriage, as detailed in paragraph 12 of the criminal miscellaneous and Annexures A and B, have not been returned to her and have been misappropriated by petitioner1 and his parents, petitioners 2 and 3.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned complaint, on the basis that the allegations of entrustment of dowry articles are vague and in fact, no case for offence under Sec. 405 IPC is made out.

According to the petitioners'' own showing, she is working as a clerk in the office of the Director, Correspondence Courses, Panjab University Chandigarh and as such, is an educated lady. According to her averments she came to know, after her marriage with petitioner1 on 14986, that he was already married with an American lady and had not obtained divorce from her. She appears to have ignored all these facts & in February 1988, she performed her fresh marriage with petitioner1 after he had obtained divorce and then this marriage was got registered. If. in fact, petitionerI had been guilty of any misconduct, as complained of by her now, she would not have agreed for the marriage ceremonies performed in the year 1988. She obviously had learnt that her marriage was a nullity and no strings were attached, like a prudent person, she would have refused to have any further dealings with petitioner1 and his parents. As soon as petitioner1 left for USA in June/July 1988, she returned to her perents house and whatever demands were made at that time, are attributed to petitioner1. According to her own showing she has been living with her mother since petitioner1 left for USA. There were little chances of Ishar Singh, petitioner2 and Smt Shamsher Kaur petitioner 3 and Surinder Singh petitioner1 making further demands. There are no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles with the parent of petitioner1. The matter was entirely between the husband and wife with respect to the entrustment of those articles. It is also interesting to note that all the articles described in Annexures A and B are alleged to have been given as the time of Shagan ceremony on 13986 and the marriage on 14986. After having learned about petitioner. I''s marriage with her, without obtaining divorce from his earlier American wife is difficult to accept that she did not make a demand for the return of dowry articles from her inlaws, if any articles had in fact been entrusted to them. It is for all these reasons, that I am of the view that the allegations are not only vague. but also made with an oblique motive. Her marriage with petitioner1, who has since migrated to USA, appears to have run into rough weather and for that purpose, she has tried to implicate her fatherinlaw petitioner2 and motherinlaw petitioner3 so as to wreak vengeance. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous brought by Ishar Singh petitioner2 and Smt. Shamsher Kaur petitioner3 and quash the impugned FIR and all the consequent proceedings qua them.

So far as surinder Singh alias Shinda petitioner1 is concerned, the impugned FIR contains specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles and cruelty. For a charge under section 498A IPC. the cruelty is to be by the husband and obviously the husband means a lawfully wedded husband. According to petitioners'' own showing lawful marriage as performed in January; February 1988. It is only an act of Surinder Singh after his lawful marriage with the complainant that will fall within the definition of section 498A IPC. The second charge framed thus, must specify the date and time and place on which Surinder Singh petitioner can be described to have committed an offenceunder section 498A IPC. A direction is hereby issued to the trial Magistrate to reframe the charge against him, in the light of the foregoing discussion. The criminal miscellaneous qua Surinder Singh stands disposed of with the direction given above.