Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 678 (PNJ)

Swaran Lata v. State Of Punjab

2001-07-12

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition by Swaran Lata, mother-in-law and Sanjeev Kumar, Dewar, for quashing FIR No. 313 dated 18.7.1999 under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. of Police Station Sadar, Patiala along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, which has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, Sushma d/o Rur Chand wife of Som Nath. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sushma Sharma, complainant, was married with Som Nath son of Ram Dass on 12.10.1994. The marriage was solemnized by the parents of the complainant with great pomp and show as she was a Government employee and used to earn. The parents of Sushma had given sufficient dowry and golden ornaments at the time of marriage for the complainant, her husband, his brother, his mother and also for his sisters and other relatives. At the time of marriage, Som Nath or his relatives did not disclose that he was already married and played a fraud with her. It was next alleged that Som Nath, his mother Swaran Lata and brother Senjeev Kumar were not satisfied with the dowry given and Swaran Lata started taunting her and stated that she was not a suitable match for her son and her parents had given less dowry and was often given beatings for bringing less dowry and pushed her out of the house. She went to her parents who gave golden Kara to her husband and told the mediator to convey to the mother of her husband not to behave with her in such a manner and to live peacefully. After sometime, again the petitioners and their co-accused started harassing her and given severe beatings and was compelled to fulfil their illegal demands from time to time. It was further alleged that she had filed complaints two times before the Women Cell, Patiala, which were compromised on 11.7.1999 and 29.7.1999 and Som Nath had agreed to live peacefully and not to put forwad. any demand in future. 3. It was also alleged that Som Nath started bringing his previous wife, Usha Rani, to the house and Usha Rani also threatened her to leave the house of Som Nath, otherwise she would finish her. It was also pleaded that all the dowry articles given to the petitioners and her husband were retained by them and had been mis-appropriated. 4. It was also alleged that Som Nath started bringing his previous wife, Usha Rani, to the house and Usha Rani also threatened her to leave the house of Som Nath, otherwise she would finish her. It was also pleaded that all the dowry articles given to the petitioners and her husband were retained by them and had been mis-appropriated. 4. Upon the complaint of Sushma Sharma, case under Sections 406/498A was registered against the petitioners and Som Nath. Now, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law have applied for quashing the FIR. 5. I have heard Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Narula, Mr. P.S. Stiller, AAG, Punjab, and carefully gone through the file. 6. Counsel for the petitioners contended that on 3.6.1998, Smt. Sushma had filed a report in Police Post Triptri, Patiala, stating that her husband used to give her beating by taking drinks and her landlord Karan Singh, ASI and his wife used to instigate her husband. She further stated in it that they pressurised her to give divorce to Som Nath. She also stated that on 3.6.1998 at about 9 a.m., she was picking up the household articles in order to change her room, then Karan Singh, landlord and his wife Joginder Kaur tried to stop her from picking the articles and started fighting. It is further stated that Karan Singhs wife had snatched the purse from her hand which contained cash amount and other articles. This report in fact shows that Sushma had started living separately from her husband in June, 1998. In July, 1998, Som Nath, husband of Sushma had lodged Report No. 11 dated 11.7.1998 in Police Station Sadar, Patiala in which he had stated that on 3.6.1998 in his absence Sushma had taken all the household articles to some unknown place and further one Ravinder Pal Singh, at the instance of Sushma, had caused him injuries. Thus, these two documents suggest that Sushma had already taken away the articles and had been living separately from Som Nath, his mother and brother. So, there is no question that the petitioners and Som Nath had demanded dowry from Sushma or Swaran Lata, mother-in-law, taunted her for bringing less dowry or that in pursuance of the fulfilment of the demand, the parents of Sushma had given one golden Kara to Som Nath. So, there is no question that the petitioners and Som Nath had demanded dowry from Sushma or Swaran Lata, mother-in-law, taunted her for bringing less dowry or that in pursuance of the fulfilment of the demand, the parents of Sushma had given one golden Kara to Som Nath. If the parents of Sushma had given golden Kara to Som Nath, then the mother-in-law and brother-in-law cannot be liable in any manner under Section 498, I.P.C. because the Kara was given to the husband. It also cannot be said that it was taken after harassment because golden Kara is such an article which is generally given as gift on some occasion. Already the matter was patched up twice in Women Cell on 11.7.1999 and 29.7.1999. This fact shows that the relations between Sushma and Som Nath were strained and they were not pulling on well and compromise was taken place twice but one thing is clear that they were living separately from Swaran Lata and Sanjeev Kumar and later on she also separated from her husband Some Nath as is clear from the report dated 3.6.1998 bearing DDR No. 26 Annexure P-5. 7. Counsel for the petitioners next contended that Som Nath had filed a petition for divorce against Sushma and when she came to know about the divorce petition she got a case registered against Som Nath, his mother and brother. He further stated that the alleged allegations for demand of dowry were wholly vague and preposterous and nothing has been specified against anyone with regard to any particular act or role played by such person and in fact no offence was made out under Section 498-A, I.P.C. He also contended that there was no evidence of any entrustment of articles of dowry to the petitioners. 8. Keeping in view these facts, I do not think that any case is made out under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. against the petitioners, who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Sushma Sharma. Consequently F.I.R. No. 313, dated 18.7.1999 under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C. of Police Station Sadar, Patiala is quashed qua the petitioners as the same is malafide and lodged to harass the petitioners.