V.P.Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Jhanji, J.

This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr. C.P. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 64 dated 881994 registered at P.S. Chandi Mandir, District Ambala, under sections 405/406/498A IPC and 120B IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom.

F.I.R. No. 64 dated 881994 was registered on the basis of an application filed by respondent No. 2 Sheena Singh wife of Captain Amitabh Singh wherein it was alleged that she was married to Amitabh Singh as per Sikh rites at Lucknow and towards the consideration of marriage, petitioner No. 4 aided and abetted by petitioners 1 to 3, i.e. his father, mother and younger brother, extracted considerable dowry from her parents in the shape of cash, jewellery and valuable clothes and household articles. Petitioners 1 and 2 also gave not only jewellery but also valuable clothes, which were collected by them at the time of departure of Barat from Lucknow to New Delhi and brought to the parental house of petitioner No. 4 at House No. S398, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi on the morning of 1111993 purely as a trust for and on her behalf returnable to her on demand as and when so projected by her. She has alleged that instead of welcoming her as the newly wedded wife of petitioner No. 4 not only petitioners 2 and 3 opposed the matrimonial relationship in between her and petitioner No. 4, but they also started condemning her for having not brought dowry as per their expectations. She felt hurt thereof but suffered quietly and thereafter she along with respondent No. 4 came to Bombay. Since no rented accommodation was available at Bombay, she was allowed to carry a few items of jewellery, clothes and other articles whereas all her other articles stood retained by petitioners 1 to 3 at Delhi. She further alleged that towards the end of January, 1993 then shifted to rented accommodation and then shifted to their own accommodation in May, 1993. It is her allegation that petitioner No. 4 made it a point to condemn her for having not brought dowry as per his expectation and to the expectation of other petitioners and she was subjected to cruelty, physical as well as mental as a result of which she suffered from bulging disc which made her totally bed ridden. Instead of getting her treated, petitioners sent her to her parental house at Lucknow towards the end of March 1993 from where she returned in April, 1993. Petitioner No. 4 continued subjecting her to utmost cruelty, physical as well as mental, and extracted from her and her parents different amounts on different dates, amounting to Rs. 3,05,210/ not only for the purchase of flat, but also for purchase of Crown Colour T.V. She became pregnant in July, 1993, but petitioner No. 4 started pressurising her to undergo abortion as he did not want to be saddled with the responsibility of upbringing his child, to which she did not agree. She has alleged that her elder sister visited them at Bombay in November, 1993 but her visit was not at all welcomed by petitioner No. 4. On 27111993, petitioner No.4 picked up a quarrel with her sister and slapped her and when she remonstrated, he also slapped her and threatened to throw them down from his flat. Her complaint to the police runs into many pages. In regard to the maltreatment and demand of jewellery made at Chandi Mandir where the FIR has been registered, she has stated that her parents seeing her miserable plight brought her to Chandi Mandir when she was in sixth month of her pregnancy. On 2021994, petitioner No. 4 came down from Bombay to Chandi Mandir to live with her till 2321994. Subsequently, he again came to Chandi Mandir on 1231994, a day before her admission in Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, where she was admitted on 123 1994. She gave birth to a son, when elder sister of petitioner No.4, namely, Reena Mohan and petitioner No. 4 came to see her. Subsequently, petitioner No. 4 again visited her at her parental house on 19.4.1994 and on 21.4.1994 when her father had left for his office, petitioner No. 4 again stated harassing her with a view to coerce her and in turn her parents to give to his mother and Reena Mohan, his elder married sister, a gold set each and when she refused to oblige him, he lost control and started beating her, which immediately invited the intervention of not only her mother, Tina Whig, her elder married sister, but also Major Mohit wig, her brotherinlaw, who saved her from further beating. Thereafter, petitioner No. 4 left the house and returned to Bombay en route New Delhi. She has also alleged that when she demanded from petitioners 1, 2 and 3 her Istridhan, they returned her some of the articles and when she on 161994 demanded the remaining articles of Istridhan, they bluntly refused to return the same. Again on 661994, she demanded from petitioners 1 and 4 her articles of Istridhan lying at New Delhi, but they refused to return the same. On these averments, she alleged that she not only has been deprived of most of her articles of Istridhan but also subjected to cruelty, physical and mental, and therefore, there was no alternative with her but to lodge a case under Sections 405/406/498A, I.P.C. r/w Section 120B IPC at P.S. Chandi Mandir.

Quashing of the F.I.R. has been sought on the grounds:

(i) that the marriage took place at Lucknow and the alleged dowry articles were entrusted at Lucknow and complainant is living at Bombay and thus, the Court at Ambala has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under section 406 IPC;

(ii) that a reading of the F.I.R. shows that there are vague/general and unspecific allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles to all the petitioners and there is no allegation as to refusal on the part of accused petitioners to return the dowry articles;

(iii) that a reading of F.I.R. further shows that the husband and wife are living at Bombay and cruelty, if any, took place at Bombay and therefore, Court at Ambala has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under section 498A IPC. In support of his submissions, counsel has cited judgments in 1994 (1) R.C.R. 5; 1995(1) R.C.R. 499; 1995(3) R.C.R. 585 and 1990 (1) R.C.R. 497.

(iv) that there is no allegation that alleged harassment was caused to extract money or valuable security unlawfully from the wife. Counsel in this regard submitted that merely asking the wife to give a gift for the sister or mother of the husband does not constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.

In answer to these submissions, counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that parties to the marriage last resided as husband and wife at Chandi Mandir and the Istridhan was required to be returned at Chandi Mandir where respondent No. 2 was residing, and therefore, Ambala Court has certainly the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under Section 406 IPC. He also submitted that there are specific allegations in the F.I.R. in regard to demand and entrustment of dowry and also that respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty, physical as well as mental, within the jurisdiction of Ambala Court and as such, the objection in this regard is not entertainable.

Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition. It has come in the F.I.R. that after marriage respondent No.2 was subjected to both physical as well as mental cruelty. Particulars of the articles which were given at the time of marriage and also on demand during the time respondent No. 2 has been staying with petitioner No. 4 find mention in the application on the basis of which First Information Report was registered wherein it has specifically been averred that the articles which were entrusted to the petitioners were never returned to her on demand. In a large number of cases, it has been held by the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an F.I.R., the High Court will have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. or the documents accompanying the same. In the present case, clear allegations of taking the property into custody by the petitioners, which actually belongs to the wife, have been made in the First Information Report. It has also been alleged that on demand, articles have not been returned to the wife. It is not the case of the petitioners that the property allegedly in their possession belongs to them. Rather the property, in respect of which breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, is the property belonging to the wife. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that petitioners were holding the property in trust for her. Therefore, in these circumstances, it would be proper for this Court to quash the F.I.R. when the investigation is at the initial stage. The allegations regarding maltreatment on different occasions are also specific and prima facie disclose the commission of offence by the petitioners. Under section 498A. IPC, the cruelty to the wife by husband or relations of the husband is the ingredient of the offence. Physical or mental harassment to wife by her husband or parentsinlaw is covered under the said provision. One of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that at Chandi Mandir on 2141994, petitioner No. 4 harassed respondent No. 2 with a view to coerce her and her parents to give to her motherinlaw and sisterinlaw a gold set each and when she refused to oblige him, he lost control and gave beatings to her. Alleged harassment to her seems to be a continuing one. In started when demand for dowry was made outside Chandi Mandir and has continued even at Chandi Mandir where respondent No. 2 came to reside with her parents. It may be possible to show during trial that the offence was partly committed where respondent No. 2 was residing when F.I.R. was registered. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by counsel for petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case being clearly distinguishable.

Consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed.