Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 746 (PNJ)

Harbans Singh v. Amarjit Kaur

2002-08-02

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing complaint dated 10.4.1990, Annexure P.1 and summoning order dated 7.12.1991, Annexure P.2, and order dated 15.6.1993, copy Annexure P.3 passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly, facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant Amarjit Kaur was married to Harbans Singh petitioner herein on 22.1.1975. Present petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the year 1984 and a decree for dissolution of marriage was granted on 11.8.1986. The complainant filed a complaint on 10.4.1990 against her husband and other relations. However, subsequently, on her statement, other relations were given up. 3. The Trial Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence passed order or summoning under Sections 498 A/406 IPC, copy Annexure P.2. However, on an application moved by the petitioner, the petitioner was discharged for an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, the challenge in the present petition is summoning of the petitioner under Section 406 IPC. 4. As per the allegations made in the complaint valuable articles including furniture, utensils, electrical appliances, clothes and jewellery as per list attached were given. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused started putting pressure on the complainant to bring more dowry articles and ultimately the complainant was turned out in September, 1981. The allegations of the complainant is that she along with respectable approached the accused and saw the accused utilizing the articles of dowry in their house and when a demand was made for the return of the dowry articles, the accused threatened that if any body came with such a demand he will have to face dire consequences. 5. The petitioner has made two fold arguments for seeking quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings. The first argument is that in matrimonial proceedings the wife has made no claim to return of articles as contemplated under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act,) and therefore, the wife is precluded to make a grievance of any such dowry article much less by way of a complaint under Section 406 IPC. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dr. Suraj Parkash v. Mohinder Pal Sharma, (1988-1) P.L.R. 43. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dr. Suraj Parkash v. Mohinder Pal Sharma, (1988-1) P.L.R. 43. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the Court was considering an appeal arising out of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, and it has been held that any order under Section 27 of the Act, could be made at the time while passing the decree in a petition filed under the Act. It has been held that the application under Section 27 of the Act, is a summary remedy and no separate order under Section 27 is contemplated by the Act. 6. I am of the opinion that reliance of the petitioner on the said judgment is wholly untenable. The failure of the wife to raise any claim of the disposal of the property contemplated under Section 27 of the Act, does not debar wife to raise a dispute about the misappropriation of her property by virtue of complaint before a competent Forum. Section 27 is a summary remedy with respect to property presented at or about the time of marriage which may belong jointly to both husband and wife. As per allegations in the complaint, the petitioner is holding the trust the property belonging to the wife exclusively being her Istridhan property. Therefore, Section 27 of the Act, is not applicable. 7. It was next contended that the complaint suffers from gross delay and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. The petitioner relies upon Suresh Kumar and other v. State of Haryana, 1989 C.C. Cases 461 : [1989(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 38 (Pb. & Hry.)] where FIR was quashed which was lodged after 2 and half years of her ouster from her matrimonial home and when no details of the ornaments, clothes given in the FIR nor entrustment was shown specifically. 8. The judgment cited is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the complainant in support of her averments regarding articles of dowry attached of list along with the complaint and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence of entrustment of dowry articles. The question of delay in respect of return of dowry would be a question of fact. I respect of articles in trust with the accused, the grievance of the complainant would be from the date of refusal and not the date of entrustment. 9. The question of delay in respect of return of dowry would be a question of fact. I respect of articles in trust with the accused, the grievance of the complainant would be from the date of refusal and not the date of entrustment. 9. The counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court reported as Upamjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 1992(1) C.C. Cases 153 and argued that after the decree of divorce is granted, the lodging of the complaint and the charge against the petitioners for entrustment of dowry articles, is abuse of process and liable to be quashed. In fact in the said case, the complaint was quashed on account of vague allegations or entrustment of all dowry articles to the petitioners. In the present case, the respondent-wife has given list of dowry articles entrusted to her husband. Therefore, even the said judgment is not helpful to the argument raised by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is limited. This Court can quash proceedings only if bare reading of the complaint shows that no offence is disclosed. So this Court would not embark upon an inquiry into the allegations levelled in the complaint. The petitioner, in fact, by way of petition for quashing is trying to dispute the allegations made in the complaint which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. 11. Keeping in view the above facts, I am of the opinion that no case for quashing of the complaint is made out. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all possible pleas before the trial Court and the trial Court shall proceed to decide the case on merit irrespective of the observation made above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before trial Court on 3.9.2002.