Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2317 (PNJ)

Jagdish Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-24

H.S.BHALLA

body2006
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. Through this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 462 dated 30.12.2002 registered under Sections 406/498- A/420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts required to be noticed for disposal of the petition are that on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No. 2, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioners, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It has been alleged in the petition that on 18.10.1999, respondent No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 5 at Ludhiana. Petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of petitioner No. 5; petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of petitioner No. 5, who is the husband of respondent No. 2. It is alleged in the petition that a simple ceremony was solemnized between the parties in which no dowry was demanded by the petitioners. In the marriage, the father of the girl spent about Rs. 50-60 thousands. After the marriage, the attitude of respondent No. 2 towards the petitioners was very harsh and she wanted that her husband should live separately from his parents, but he was not willing to leave his parents and this was the bone of contention between the husband and wife. Respondent No. 2 started levelling false allegations against petitioner No. 1 and 2, who were living separately with a separate mess in the same house. It has also been alleged in the petition that after marriage, it was also discovered that respondent No. 2 was suffering from peculiar disease known as anti phosphalid syndrome, which causes recurrent pregnancy loss. The husband of respondent No. 2 got her treated from various places including PGI, Chandigarh. It was confirmed that she was suffering from the abovesaid disease and was unable to give birth to a child. After the marriage, three abortions had already occurred. On account of this fact, she became aggressive and non-cooperative towards her husband and his family members. On 9.9.2002 respondent No. 2, when petitioner No. 5, was coming down from the stair case, caught hold of him and gave a severe blow in his private parts, resulting in severe pain. After the marriage, three abortions had already occurred. On account of this fact, she became aggressive and non-cooperative towards her husband and his family members. On 9.9.2002 respondent No. 2, when petitioner No. 5, was coming down from the stair case, caught hold of him and gave a severe blow in his private parts, resulting in severe pain. It has been further alleged in the petition that on 17.9.2002 respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial house of her in-laws and went to Ludhiana, threatening them to teach a lesson to all the members of the family. It has been further alleged that petitioner No. 5 submitted a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, for taking appropriate action against respondent No. 2 and his father, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. Petitioner No. 5 served a legal notice through his counsel upon respondent No. 2 to mend her ways, otherwise, she would be constrained to seek a divorce on the ground of cruelty, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. Thereafter, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed against respondent No. 2 at Bathinda for dissolution of the marriage a copy of which is attached with the petition as Annexure P-5. It has been further alleged in the petition that respondent No. 2 as a counter-blast, moved a complaint dated 30.12.2002 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, levelling false and fabricated allegations against the petitioners. On the basis of this complaint, FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered against the petitioners. After the registration of the case, the petitioners were kept in police lock up and police remand was taken for the purpose of effecting recovery of dowry articles. Hence, this petition. 3. In the reply filed by the respondent-State, it has been specifically pleaded that the petitioners have concealed the material facts from the Court that the police, after completion of the investigation, has already submitted the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. In the reply filed by the respondent-State, it has been specifically pleaded that the petitioners have concealed the material facts from the Court that the police, after completion of the investigation, has already submitted the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The second objection raised is that the present case has been registered on the basis of the statement of Gurdeep Singh, the father of respondent No. 2, who levelled the specific allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioners and therefore, a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 406/498-A/420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The third objection raised is that after the presentation of the challan in the Court, FIR should not be quashed and on this ground also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It has been further prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The ground on which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has sought quashment of the FIR in question is that there are no specific allegations with regard to cruelty and entrustment of dowry articles levelled against the petitioners. Only the vague, frivolous and unspecific allegations have been made against the petitioners, which are general in nature. No specific allegations have been levelled against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. They are living separately with a separate mess. A simple marriage was solemnised between the parties in which no dowry more than Rs. 50-60 thousand was entrusted by the father of respondent No. 2. It is totally a false and fabricated case just to malign the image of the family of the petitioners in the society. Learned counsel has further argued that soon after the marriage, the attitude of respondent No. 2 remained harsh, non-cooperative and abusive towards petitioner No. 5 and his family members. Moreover, it is entirely a case of misuse of the provisions of Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which are being exercised by women in these days. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that soon after the marriage, the attitude of respondent No. 2 remained harsh, non-cooperative and abusive towards petitioner No. 5 and his family members. Moreover, it is entirely a case of misuse of the provisions of Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which are being exercised by women in these days. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has pointed out that the challan has already been presented in the Court, charges have been framed and the case is at the stage of evidence. It would be, in the interest of justice, inappropriate at this stage to interfere in the matter since the learned trial Court has already seized of the matter. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has further brought to the notice of the Court that the High Court should not, in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quash the proceedings, even if the High Court finds that the perusal of the complaint did not disclose grounds for proceedings against the accused. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings of the parties, I am of the considered view that since parties are levelling allegations against each other with regard to cruelty, demand of dowry and entrustment of dowry articles, therefore, no interference, at this stage, can be called for in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly especially when, the case is at the evidence stage and only after concluding the evidence, it has to be determined by the learned trial Court, as to which of the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 is correct against which of the petitioners. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Further, in support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gian Chand v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 385. The authority cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in any manner as it was not based on a matrimonial dispute. The authority cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in any manner as it was not based on a matrimonial dispute. In that authority, the dispute is with regard to the partners of the firm registered under Sections 467/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of Amarjit Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another, Crl. Misc. No. 42216-M of 2004, decided on 17.5.2006, the facts contained therein, are entirely on a different footing with the present one. In that case, this Court held that the allegations levelled in the FIR, are totally vague and did not disclose the commission of an offence and moreover, what weighed with the mind of the Court for quashing the FIR is, a lapse of time, as the allegations were levelled by the complainant after a lapse of nine years of the marriage, without disclosing any particulars in the FIR. But in the instant case, the FIR was registered on 30.12.2002; the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.10.1999 and as per the complaint, the dispute between the parties took place on 30.12.2002, meaning thereby that there is no delay on the part of the complainant and the machinery of the investigating agency was set into motion at the earliest. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.