Surinder Singh Purba vs State of Union Territory

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—The present petition, is u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. No. 361 of 1990 dated 11.9.19 0 u/s 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, being an abuse of the process of the Court and lodged with malafide intention by Smt. Harinder Pal Kaur respondent No. 2 During the pendency of this petition a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the petitioners in Court. A prayer was then made to place copy of the report on record which was allowed. The petitioner then prayed for quashing this report as well.

The first information report was recorded on the statement of Harinder Pal Kaur dated 11.9.1990 which was recorded by Shri P.K. Sharma, Executive Magistrate, when Harinder Pal Kaur was admitted to General Hospital as a case of poisoning. In this statement she alleged that she was married to Savinder Singh about two years earlier and her husband did not treat her properly. She and her husband had taken, separate residence in May 1990, as when she was living with her in-laws they too treated her in a cruel manner and often subjected her to beating. Even when she was living separately her in-laws threatened her that they will not allow her to live with their son. Under depression she look some tablets. On the basis of this statement a case u/s 498A of Indian Penal Code was registered aganist the husband and the present petitioners who are the fatrher-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Investigation in the case was conducted and then offences u/s 406 of Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added.

The contention of the petitioners was that after sometime of the marriage of their son with the complainant they found that the complainant was not a mentally balanced lady and she was unable to adjust in the family atmosphere. She threatened to implicate them in some false case and to commit suicide. She even did not spare her husband and tortured him. They had been reporting these incidents to the police from time to time and ultimately sensing toruble they separated their son and the complainant on 27.8.1989 through Istri Sabha and all articles of Istri Dhan were handed over to the complainant vide Annexure P/4. The complainant first lived with her husband in House No. 3108, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and then in House No. 3091, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. They were not entrusted with any dowry articles nor they were having any such articles in their possession. As they were living separately from the complainant since August, 1989, there was no question of treating the complainant with cruelty. They were falsely involved in the case. There was no prima facie case against them and the first information report as well as the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. were liable to be quashed being an abuse of the process, of the Court. 4.I have heard Shri H.S. Mann, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajiv vij the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri H.S. Giani the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the statement of the complainant on the basis of which F.I.R. was recorded there were absolutely no allegations regarding entrustment of any dowry articles to the petitioners or mis-appropriation of any such article by them. Even in the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation of the case there were no specific allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioners and in the absence of specific allegations no prima-facie case u/s 406 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. In support of his contention the learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of Jasbir Kaur and Others v. Kamaljit Kaur, 1988 (1) RCR 532 and also on the case of Shori Lal and Ors. v. Smt. Nisha and Another, 1989(1) RCR 276. In this later authority where a criminal complaint was filed by the wife under Sections 405 and 406 I.P.C. against her husband and in-laws and there were no specific allegations of entrustment of articles forming Istri Dhan against parents of husband it was held that no offence under Sections 405 and 406 I.P.C. was made out. 6 In the instant case the learned Counsel for the complainant could not point out specific allegation in any of the statements of the complainant regarding entrustment of a particular article of dowry to any particular person. Rather a perusal of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. shows that the complainant and her husband were living separately in house No. 3091, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, from the petitioners and all the articles of Istri Dhan were recovered from that house. A receipt regarding Istri Dhan was obtained from the complainant. Some other copies of the entries in the daily diary register of police station, Central show that much before the registration of the case against the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 had been reporting to the police that his daughter-in-law was a mentally imbalanced person who had spoiled the family atmosphere and was in the habit of giving threats to all the members of the family to implicate them in some false case. From the various documents it is very well made out that no prima-facie case u/s 406 I.P.C. was made out against the petittoners.

As regard the offence u/s 498A I.P.C, the allegations by the complainant do not reveal the same. The petitioners had disowned their son much before the present occurrence and the complainant first resided in House No. 3108, Sector 32 D and are then in House No. 3091, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. There are the affidavits of Brig. B.S. Sandhu Annexure P/9 and Shri G.S. Bhatia Annexure P/10 in support of this fact which is also not denied by the complainant. A notice was issued in India Express, Chandigarh on 17.5.1990 Annexure P/7 vide which Surinder Singh petitioner disowned his son and he restrained him and his wife from entring his residencial premises in Sector 21 -C. When the complainant separated from her in-laws in August, 1989 and the petitioners had asked her and her husband not to enter their residential premises there could hardly be any opportunity for the petitioners to treat their daughter-in-law in a cruel manner. From August, 1989 till the date of occurrence there was no complaint against the petitioners regarding ill-treatment of the complainant at their hands. There were specific allegations in the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation of the case to the effect that she was compelled to take some tablets on account of the treatment meted out to her by her husband. There were no allegations that the petitioners had come to her house and had threatened her in any manner. There are no clear, specific and unambiguous allegations of cruelty against the petitioners and vague and general allegations cannot justify or sustain the first information report.

The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that in this case a police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. had been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the investigation officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny so the inherent jurisdiction "under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in such a case and the first information report should not be quashed. He placed reliance on the case of State of Bihar and Another v. Shri P.P. Sharma and Another, Judgments Today 1991 (2) SC 147. I find that this authority is not applicable to the facts of the prerent case as in this case the petitioners had been allowed to place on record copy of the police report u/s 173 Gr.P.C. and to assail the same. Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when the allegations in the first information report as well as in the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. on the face of it did not spell out any offence. It appears that the report was lodged simply to put pressure on the petitioners and it was a misuse of the process of the Court. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the first information report dated 11.9.1900 and the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. based on the same, as against the petitioners.