Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 4281 (PNJ)

Harmel Singh v. State Of U. T. Chandigarh

2006-11-07

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the present petition (Criminal Misc. No. 44196-M of 2006) filed by Harmel Singh and Ranjit Kaur and also the petition (Criminal Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006) filed by Kulwinder Singh Padda and Sonia Padda, as both the petitions have been filed for quashing of the same FIR and the status of the petitioners is same in both the petitions qua respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 129 dated 17.4.2003 registered at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh at the instance of respondent No. 2. 3. An application was submitted by respondent No. 2 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh on 20.12.2002, wherein she stated that she was married to Sandeep Singh Dhillon, on 17.2.2002 at Chandigarh. At the time of her marriage, her parents and other relatives spent lavishly. However, soon after the marriage, her husband and her in-laws started treating her rudely. On the 3rd day itself her husband and his family members cut the suhag chura against her wish. She was forced to prepare all the three meals of the day for the whole family. She was mentally harassed. Her belongings were kept under lock and key. So much so, she was asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- for wearing each of her wedding suits, which were given by her parents. On March 5, 2002 she and her husband went to Dalhousie for honeymoon. However, on the way his mobile kept on flashing messages. When the mobile stopped receiving signals, her husband became angry and, thus, remained under stress the whole night. On the following day, both of them returned, although they had planned to stay there for a week or so. A week later, there was Bhog of Sri Akhand Path. Her relatives, who had come from Canada, gave shagun in Indian currency but her husband did not accept the same and started demanding dollars. On the following day, her relatives from Canada were to go back and they called her on phone to say good-bye. At this her in-laws realised that no more dowry would come and they started harassing her, both mentally and physically. On the following day, her relatives from Canada were to go back and they called her on phone to say good-bye. At this her in-laws realised that no more dowry would come and they started harassing her, both mentally and physically. Later on, she was informed by her husband and in-laws that Sandeep Singh Dhillon had been earlier married to some girl from Ludhiana and the said girl was turned out because she did not fulfil their demands. Accordingly, the complainant was warned that she should fulfil their demands else she will meet the same fate. After a month of the marriage, her parents called her on phone to congratulate her but she started crying. At this, her in-laws disconnected the phone and threatened her not to disclose her difficulty. In fact, she was asked to say that she was very happy. Her husband and her in-laws threatened her that they have criminals at their beck and call, who could harm her family if she and her family members did not do as asked. On March 19, 2002 her parents desired to meet her but her in-laws did not allow them to do so. She was beaten that very night. She had a severe pain in her left arm, neck and chest. She was sweating and had no other option but to take 20/25 glasses of tank water from the bathroom as her husband and refused to bring drinking water from the kitchen. About a week later, she was taken to a doctor, who was a close friend of her mother-in-law, who gave her a strong injection which had a severe reaction on her body. Three days afterwards, her parents visited her in-laws house and on seeing her condition they were shocked. They expressed a desire to take her with them but her mother-in-law created a scene. Her parents had no other option but to leave. Finally, on March 29, 2002 her husband and father-in-law left her at her parents house and she was told to bring Rs. 50,000/- in cash if she wanted to return back. She was medically advised for taking complete rest. In the meantime, her husband, who was Chief Officer in Merchant Nevy, went back to his job and she stayed at her parents place ever since till she represented to the police authorities. 50,000/- in cash if she wanted to return back. She was medically advised for taking complete rest. In the meantime, her husband, who was Chief Officer in Merchant Nevy, went back to his job and she stayed at her parents place ever since till she represented to the police authorities. At the end of her application, the complainant gave a list of gifts and dowry articles entrusted to each of her in-laws family members at the time of ring ceremony performed on 27.6.2001 and on the occasion of marriage on 17.2.2002. It was mentioned that Ranjit Kaur and Sonia Padda were given a gold pendent set each while Harmel Singh and Kulwinder Singh were given a gold ring each. Initially, after the conclusion of the investigation, final report/challan was presented by the police against Sandeep Singh Dhillon and Kuldeep Kaur, husband and mother-in- law, respectively, of the complainant whereas Prithipal Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, was found innocent and his name shown in column No. 2. The complainant was, however, not satisfied with the investigation and gave an application on 31.12.2004 to Inspector General of Police for re-investigation. The same was ordered and the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. On 3.5.2005, relevant documents were taken into possession by the police and so also the E-mail and affidavit. Finally, on 5.6.2006 supplementary report/challan was prepared and submitted to the Court against the petitioners and others. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the present petitioners as well as on behalf of Kulwinder Singh Padda and Sonia Padda, who are petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006 that they have been unnecessarily and arbitrarily drawn in as accused at a very belated stage with the sole purpose of satisfying the whims of the complainant. There was not even a single allegation or mention about these petitioners in the complaint dated 20.12.2002 on the basis of which FIR in question was registered on 17.4.2003. Moreover, after thorough investigation, the police presented challan against Sandeep Singh Dhillon and Kuldeep Kaur, husband and mother-in-law, respectively, of the complainant whereas Prithpal Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, was found innocent. After the presentation of the challan, an application was submitted by the complainant to Inspector General of Police for re-investigation, which was ordered. Moreover, after thorough investigation, the police presented challan against Sandeep Singh Dhillon and Kuldeep Kaur, husband and mother-in-law, respectively, of the complainant whereas Prithpal Singh, father-in-law of the complainant, was found innocent. After the presentation of the challan, an application was submitted by the complainant to Inspector General of Police for re-investigation, which was ordered. Once a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted, there was no scope for re-investigation and at the most the matter could be simply further investigated. Even after the conclusion of re-investigation, no sufficient evidence was collected to show the complicity of two sisters of Sandeep Singh Dhillon and their respective husband in the present case, apart from the fact that it was mentioned in the FIR that at the time of the marriage, they were given pendent sets and gold rings. During the course of re-investigation, certain E-mails and an affidavit were relied by the prosecution on the basis of which supplementary challan was presented. Finally, it was prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners bet set aside by quashing the FIR and supplementary challan presented by the police. 5. While relying on the reply by Investigating Officer, Police Station, Sector 11, Crime Branch, Chandigarh, it has been pleaded by the State counsel that sufficient evidence had come on the file during the re-investigation to connect the petitioners also with the crime. Further that after the presentation of the supplementary challan, the case was pending before the trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge. It has also been submitted that after the conclusion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, the police still had the power to re-investigate the matter without the permission of the Court concerned. 6. Respondent No. 2, while appearing in person, pleaded that the petitioners always remained present and resided in her matrimonial home at Goraya since the time of her marriage. Further that her husband Sandeep Singh Dhillon was later on discovered to be only a Senior Cadet, while it was projected before the marriage that he was a Chief Officer in Merchant Nevy and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The petitioners along with other accused played active part in the commission of crime regarding demand for more dowry, physical and mental torture and subjecting her to cruelty. 1,00,000/- per month. The petitioners along with other accused played active part in the commission of crime regarding demand for more dowry, physical and mental torture and subjecting her to cruelty. Her husband Sandeep Singh Dhillon, was declared a proclaimed offender in the present case, whereas her mother-in-law Kuldeep Kaur was charge-sheeted by the trial Court on 6.8.2004. She further submitted that she had filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Sandeep Singh Dhillon, wherein the Judicial Magistrate directed payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of her application but she did not get even a single penny of maintenance. She pleaded for dismissal of both the present petitions. She also submitted her written arguments in both the petitions jointly, which have been taken on record in the present petition. 7. The parties have been heard and their pleadings, besides the documents placed on the record, have been perused. 8. It is a fact that the investigation of the case was completed and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against Sandeep Singh Dhillon (husband) and Kuldeep Kaur (mother-in-law), whereas Prithpal Singh (father-in-law of respondent No. 2) was shown in column No. 2 of the report. After the presentation of the challan, the complainant/respondent No. 2 was not satisfied and, accordingly, she made an application for re-investigation. Her request for re-investigation was accepted by Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh. He ordered for conducting re-investigation. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is the only provision in the Code which gives power to the police to investigate the matter further after the presentation of the final report. However, the said provision of law does not confer any power of fresh investigation or re-investigation. At the most, the police could go in for further investigation. 9. In K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 719 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that the Code does not allow conducting of fresh investigation or re-investigation after the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and that police had a right of only further investigation. Said conclusion is reproduced hereinbelow :- "From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right of `further investigation under sub- section (8) but not `fresh investigation or `re-investigation. Said conclusion is reproduced hereinbelow :- "From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right of `further investigation under sub- section (8) but not `fresh investigation or `re-investigation. That the Government of Kerala was also conscious of this position is evident from the fact that though initially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their notification dated June 27, 1996 (quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in public interest to order a `re-investigation of the case by a special team of State Police Officers, in the mandatory notification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a `further investigation of the case instead of `re-investigation of the case. The dictionary meaning of `further (when used as an adjective) is `additional; more; supplemental. `Further investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a `further report or reports - and not fresh report or reports - regarding the `further evidence obtained during such investigation." 10. In the present case, the complainant submitted an application for reinvestigation on not being satisfied with the presentation of challan against her husband and mother-in-law while declaring her father-in-law to be innocent. Her said request was accepted by Inspector General of Police and re-investigation was ordered. The order allowing reinvestigation by the said officer, was not in accordance with law. 11. Even if it is taken that for all intents and purposes, the reinvestigation was nothing but further investigation, it did not reveal any direct evidence of complicity of the petitioners. In the FIR, there was no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners. It was alleged that all the accused had been harassing and maltreating the complainant. It was stated specifically that a pendent set each was given to Ranjit Kaur and Sonia Padda, while a gold ring each to Harmel Singh and Kulwinder Singh Padda, their respective husbands. These items given to the petitioners could not form part of her istri dhan. It was alleged that all the accused had been harassing and maltreating the complainant. It was stated specifically that a pendent set each was given to Ranjit Kaur and Sonia Padda, while a gold ring each to Harmel Singh and Kulwinder Singh Padda, their respective husbands. These items given to the petitioners could not form part of her istri dhan. These items, by their very nature were customary gifts given by the girls side to the relatives of the boy. There is no specific allegation whatsoever that any of the petitioners specifically demanded any dowry or maltreated/harassed the complainant. The allegations qua the petitioners are vague in nature and would not attract Section 406 IPC. It appears that the prosecution tried to spread net too wide so as to rope in the petitioners. It may not be out of place to mention here that the complainant/respondent No. 2 along with her husband Sandeep Singh Dhillon resided at Goraya after marriage, whereas petitioner Ranjit Kaur and her husband Harmel Singh (in Crl. Misc No. 44196-M of 2006) resided at village Muzaffarpur, near Nakodar, District Jalandhar, while petitioners Sonia Padda and her husband Kulwinder Singh Padda (in Crl. Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006) resided at Mumbai. 12. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 695 (SC), their Lordships of the Honble Apex Court observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. 13. In another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Saritha v. R. Ramachandra, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 481 (A.P.), the Honble Division Bench while dealing with a case under Section 498-A IPC observed that the things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC. 14. 13. In another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Saritha v. R. Ramachandra, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 481 (A.P.), the Honble Division Bench while dealing with a case under Section 498-A IPC observed that the things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC. 14. In a recent judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and others, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 823 (Delhi), it was observed that there was growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing. A suggestion has been given to the law making authorities to have a review of the situation and the legal provisions. 15. To be fair to the complainant, it may be mentioned here that during the re-investigation, Sandeep Singh Dhillon was found to be only Senior Cadet in a Shipping Company, although, he was initially projected to be Chief Officer in Merchant Navy and drawing Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as salary. Upon these allegations the police presented the supplementary challan under Section 420 IPC. However, there is no averment anywhere in the FIR that it were the petitioners who had disclosed the said false information to the complainant and her family members before the solemnization of marriage of complainant with Sandeep Singh Dhillon. In fact allegations against the petitioners were general and vague in nature. 16. As a sequel to the aforementioned discussion, this Court finds that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioners in the present petition (Crl. Misc. No. 44196-M of 2006) and also in the connected petition (Crl. Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006) arising therefrom in the shape of presentation of supplementary challan, are liable to be quashed being sheer abuse of the process of law. Ordered accordingly. 17. Consequently, the present petition as well as Crl. Misc. No. 48942-M of 2006 are allowed.