Sushma and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint

No. 34 dated 07.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ''IPC'') and summoning order

dated 21.04.2007 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

petitioner No. 1 is the married sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 whereas, petitioner No. 2 is the unmarried sister-in-law of respondent No. 2.

Petitioner No. 3 is the unmarried brother-in-law of respondent No. 2. A perusal of the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant

recorded before the Trial Court reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners. Rather allegations have been levelled

only against accused-Ram Murti alias Bablu and Amarjeet Kaur. Petitioners have been falsely involved in this case merely because of their

relationship with the husband of respondent No. 2.

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, despite service.

In the present case, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters of the husband of respondent No. 2, whereas, petitioner No. 3 is the younger brother

of the husband of respondent No. 2. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that no specific allegations have been levelled against the

petitioners. It is only mentioned in the complaint that certain articles were handed over to the petitioners at the time of marriage of respondent No.

2 with Ram Murti alias Bablu (brother of the petitioners). Rather a perusal of the complaint reveals that allegations qua harassment and beatings

have been levelled against accused-Ram Murti alias Bablu and Amarjeet Kaur. It appears that the petitioners have been involved in this case

merely because of their relationship with the husband of respondent No. 2.

In Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all

the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for

involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.

The Apex Court in the case of '' Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , has held as under:-

The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come

to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases

wipe out the ignomy (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore,

is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra

vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for

the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to

take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the

provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassins'' weapon. If cry of ""wolf"" is

made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual ""wolf"" appears. There is no question of investigating

agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures,

deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the

innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the

courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and

generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating

agencies and the courts is that of watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer

on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the

courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in

view.

In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly,

this petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No. 34 dated 07.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and summoning order

dated 21.04.2007 (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners are quashed.