Vandana vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Singh, J.

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 326 dated 29.5.1995 under Sections 406/498A IPC which was got registered by Deepika, who was married to Gulshan Kumar on 28.2.1995 at Karnal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given as detailed in schedule A and B, attached with the complaint by taking loan by her mother, who was employed in the Education Department, Haryana. Her brother, Ajay Kumar also contributed about Rs. 22,000/ by selling a plot of his own for giving dowry. In all, about Rs. 2,00,000/ were spent on her marriage which could not satisfy the greed of the accused. The complainant, who was employed earlier to her marriage also got encashed an F.D.R. of Rs. 20,000/ for the purpose of her marriage. Her husband, Gulshan is working as a painter in the Railway Coach Factory at Kapurthala. After marriage, he accompanied her to Kapurthala. Her husband was leading a loose life at Kapurthala and carrying on with the wife of the accused. She came back to Karnal in April, 1995, but she could not lead happy life also in the house of her inlaws. An attempt was made to burn her by tampering of the gas pipe by her sisterinlaw Vandana (petitioner No. 1 of this petition), who admitted this fact before hearing. The matter triggered off a controversy and she was turned out of her matrimonial home in the mid April, 1995 and since then she is living with her parents. The complainant has alleged allegations regarding entrustment of gold ornaments to Vandana (petitioner No. 1) alongwith other valuable articles to other accused.

This complaint was sent to S.H.O. PS City Karnal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police investigated the case and filed the challan in the court.

In the return filed by the respondentState preliminary objection was taken that the investigation has already been completed and the challan has already been sent to the trial Court against the petitioners and other co accused. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the case is fixed for charge where all the contentions raised by the petitioner can be argued. On merits, marriage was admitted. It was also admitted that she remained with her husband at Kapurthala and left Kapurthala after one month of her marriage and that there were allegations of maltreatment, cruelty both mental, physical and misappropriation of entrusted articles. An attempt was made to murder her by Vandana (petitioner No. 1).

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the articles of dowry have been returned and in this regard, he referred to Annexure P3 and submitted that no article of dowry is left with the accused party and therefore no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. A perusal of Annexure P3 shows that all the articles of dowry, which were left with the accused have been handed over to the complainantDeepika in front of the entire Panchayat and nothing now remains to be returned by the accused party to the complainant party. Therefore, no offence under Section 406 IPC survives.

Now, coming to the point whether the complaint discloses the commission of any other offence complained therein, the Court is to take into consideration the complaint as such. A perusal of the complaint when read as a whole goes to show the commission of the offence complained therein. The Court is not required to embark upon an enquiry to find out whether the allegations are true or not. That is the function of the trial court to do so after giving opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence in respect of their case. It is settled law that the High Court is required to exercise this power with circumspection. It court is not required to cut short the process of criminal trial in a casual manner. This is not the duty of this court to weigh the evidence and to hold that it is reliable or not, genuine or not. The Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604 :

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 officer as under Section 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 not 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 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 the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Smt. Adarsh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1992(1) RCR (Crl.) 667 : 1992(1) All India Criminal L.R. 659, Jasbir Kaur and another v. The State of Haryana and another, 1990(2) R.C.R. 243, Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab another, 1991(3) R.C.R. 113. These cases are not helpful to the complainant in view of the above guidelines. Therefore, I do not find that there is anything to hold that no case is made out for the offence complained therein except under Section 406 IPC as discussed above. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.