Swaranjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') seeking quashing of FIR No. 289 dated 3.10.2008 registered under Sections 420/498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') at Police Station Faridkot, and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner was married with Gurmail Singh in the year 2003 and is residing in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar. The complainant got married with the Crl. Misc. No. M-25497 of 2010 brother of the Petitioner on 4.2.2007. The Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case merely because of her relationship with the complainant.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

It has been held in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police Crl. Misc. No. M-25497 of 2010 officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and Crl. Misc. No. M-25497 of 2010 personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P1) reveals that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are that she along with Manpreet Singh, Charanjit Kaur had started harassing the complainant and taunted her that she has brought less dowry from her parents and so she would not be allowed to live in the house. As per the FIR, the complainant had brought various amounts from her father and had handed over the same to her mother in law. Rs. 2,00,000/-were being demanded from the parents of the complainant as the husband of the complainant and his brother wanted to expand their business. However, since the demand could not be met, the husband of complainant started beating her. On 1.10.2008, the husband of the complainant had given fist blows to her for not bringing Rs. 2,00,000/-from her parents. The complainant had been cheated at the time of marriage as she had been told that Manpreet Singh was working as a Clerk in the Courts at Faridkot but later it transpired that Manpreet Singh was working as a Clerk with a lawyer.

A perusal of the above allegations reveal that the Petitioner has Crl. Misc. No. M-25497 of 2010 been named in the FIR merely because she is the sister of the husband of the complainant. Petitioner is residing in her matrimonial home since the year 2003,whereas, the marriage of the complainant was performed in the year 2007. There is a tendency on the part of the complainant party to involve all the family members of the in-laws party.

In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (2)RCR 696 (SC), 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 allegations against the Petitioner in the FIR are vague. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient and in the interest of justice to quash the FIR as continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 289 dated 3.10.2008 registered under Sections 498A/420/323/34 IPC at Police Station Faridkot and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the Petitioner.