Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2318 (PNJ)

Sarwan Ram 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. 126 dated 13.8.2002 registered under Sections 498-A/354 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Majitha, district Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts required to be noticed for disposal of the petition are that petitioner Sarwan Ram is aged about 70 years. He retired from Army in the year 1983 and is getting pension. Thereafter, he was employed in Air force from where he retired at the age of 60 years. Mohinder Kaur, petitioner No. 2, is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Tamana Rani, petitioner No. 4 who is the daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, was married with Harbans Singh on 12.10.2002 and is residing at Burail in Chandigarh. Petitioner No. 3 is a married person having two daughters, namely Surjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur and one son. He is having a separate card and is living separately from the remaining petitioners. It has been alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement of Santosh Kumari (respondent No. 2) wife of Sukhwinder son of Sarwan Ram (petitioner No. 1), a case was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/354 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code mentioning therein that she was married with Sukhwinder son of Sarwan Ram on 26.11.2000. Her husband met with an accident on 23.5.2001 and expired on 18.6.2001. On the following day, she was got remarried with Jagdish Singh (brother-in-law) through chaddar ceremony and thus, they started living as husband and wife. On the next date of marriage, her mother-in-law Mohinder Kaur, sister-in-law Tamana Rani started taunting her. After 10-15 days of the marriage, Jagdish Singh and Ajmer Singh sons of Sarwan Ram and her father-in- law Sarwan Ram started giving her beatings and asked her to bring colour T.V., scooter and cash. It has been further alleged in the petition that her brother-in-law Ajmer Singh tried to kill her as she did not agree to fulfil his bad intentions. She also complained about it to her husband Jagdish, but he did not take care of it. She has also alleged that the above named petitioners turned her out of their house and threatened her not to come back. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. She also complained about it to her husband Jagdish, but he did not take care of it. She has also alleged that the above named petitioners turned her out of their house and threatened her not to come back. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the very outset has contended that the petition qua petitioners, namely, Ajmer Singh, Sarwan Ram, father-in-law and Mohinder Kaur, mother-in-law have already been rejected by this Court. Only the case of Tamana Rani, sister-in-law of the complainant and is now married with Harbans Singh at Burail in Chandigarh, is on different footing with that of the above named petitioners and on account of this, the petition qua Tamana Rani was admitted, as is apparent from the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by this Court. Learned counsel has further contended that from the bare reading of the FIR, it reveals that only some vague allegations have been levelled against Tamana Rani and no specific allegation has been made against her. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, could not point out any specific or serious allegations against the petitioner except for pointing out one or two allegations, which are normally levelled to rope in all the relations of husband. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, to my mind, petitioner has no role to play in the alleged commission of the crime. There is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations, roping in each and every relation of the husband. In the case of Kans Ram v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 695 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2324, the Honble Apex Court has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry articles and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In the case of Anita and others v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 313, the First Information Report was lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire members of family of the husband. In the case of Anita and others v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 313, the First Information Report was lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the entire members of family of the husband. First Information Report against the four unmarried sisters and brother was quashed, exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations of husband and wife become strained. I find that the only vague allegations have been made against the present petitioner, who is the real daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that petitioner No. 4 is now married and at this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice, appropriate to drag her in unnecessary litigation for no fault of her. I am of the view that it is a fit case where the FIR in question qua Tamana Rani, petitioner No. 4, can be quashed. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, the petition qua Tamana Rani, petitioner No. 4, is accepted. The FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.