Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 233 (PNJ)

Mrs. Poonam v. State of Punjab

2007-02-07

M.M.S.BEDI

body2007
JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J. - Petitioner Poonam, married sister-in-law of Kawaljit Kaur complainant has preferred this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIR No. 361 dated 23.9.2001 under Section 406/498-A Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code While allowing the above said application filed by Kanwaljit Kaur complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has opted to join the petitioner as an accused on the basis of the statement of Kawaljit Kaur recorded in Court to the effect that the petitioner used to torture her on the ground of demand of dowry from her. Initially the complainant had roped in all the family members of her husband in a criminal case under Section 406/498-A Indian Penal Code alleging that she was married to Ravinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh. A large number of dowry articles worth Rs. 1.00 lac were given along with gold sets etc. A sum of Rs. 2.00 lac was paid in cash. On the very next day of the marriage, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, married sister-in-law Poonam (petitioner) and brother-in-law started torturing her for dowry. The petitioner allegedly used to visit the matrimonial house to interfere in her matrimonial life. She was given beatings when she was pregnant. Her husband and the petitioner brought one nurse on the pretext that her abortion was to be carried out, to which she refused. Vague allegations against the petitioner that she along with her family members threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her and that they gave beatings to her. 2. So far as the summoning of the petitioner under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, the Honble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 75 (SC) has laid down certain parameters holding that the discretionary power should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and the Court should not turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. It was observed that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. The extra-ordinary power conferred on the Court under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other person against whom action has been taken. In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3) Apex Criminal 643, it has been held that the Court should not summon a person as additional accused and pass an order mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person. 3. The trial Court has not exercised the jurisdiction cautiously and has not appreciated that the petitioner is the married sister of the complainants husband and has been living separately at a different place. In Smt. Rani v. State of Haryana, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 985 while upsetting the order of the trial Court summoning the additional accused under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code it was observed that sweep of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code is limited as it is an enabling provision which can be invoked only if evidence surfaces in the course of an inquiry or a trial disclosing the complicity of person(s) other than the person(s) already arraigned. In the said case the order passed under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code summoning the persons, who were living separately was set aside holding that they could not have interfered in the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband. 4. It was specifically observed in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Michael Machados case (supra) that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from allowing an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to add additional accused. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the revision petition against the interlocutory order is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in K.K. Patel and another v. State of Gujarat and another, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 863; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 800 and M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd., 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 137. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has already obtained divorce from the brother of the petitioner and has remarried. The petitioner has been residing at a different place and she does not seem to have any role to play in the alleged commission of crime. The complainant has tried to involve the petitioner by alleging that she used to frequently visit her matrimonial home to harass her. There is a growing tendency to exaggerate the allegations with an objective to rope in each and every relation of the husband. The Honble Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram(Kans Raj) v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 695 (SC) has observed that the said tendency if not discouraged, it is likely to effect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In Anita and others v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 313, the FIR lodged by the wife under Sections 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code against the entire members of the family of the husband was quashed against four unmarried sisters-in-law and a brother-in-law of the complainant in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code observing that it is not believable that the unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. So far as the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 (SC), wherein it was held that if the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/FIR. The vague allegations in the petition against the petitioner and insufficient grounds to summon the petitioner warrant the interference of this court for quashing all the proceedings against the petitioner with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The summoning of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Michael Machados case (supra) and the continuation of the proceedings against her are held to be bad and an abuse of the process of the court as the oblique motive of the complainant is writ large. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, FIR No. 361 dated 23.9.2001 under Sections 406/406 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil Line, Amritsar, summoning order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) and the subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner only are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.