Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1106 (PNJ)

Seema v. Jaswinder Kaur

2010-03-08

GURDEV SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Gurdev Singh, J.:- Petitioners/accused, Seema, Harcharan Kaur, Baby alias Pritpal Kaur Bedi and Sonia have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing criminal complaint titled “Jaswinder Kaur vs. Gurpreet Singh and others”(Annexure P-1), filed under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal code, summoning order dated 12.2.2008 and the consequential proceeding initiated thereon. 2. According to them, marriage of Jaswinder Kaur, respondent-complainant, was solemnized with Gurpreet Singh on 19.1.2003 and they lived as such at Ludhiana and from that wedlock, one daughter-Saloni, was born on 21.7.2004. The complaint has been filed by the complainant due to difference of opinion between her and her husband. No offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC is made out against them from that complaint and they were falsely implicated on account of their relationship with Gurpreet Singh. Petitioners No. 1 and 4 are his married sisters whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the sisters of his mother. There is no allegation against them in the complaint that they also committed said offences. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 16.4.2000 and she is having two children, aged 7 and 1 ½ years and petitioner No. 4 was married on 22.9.1996 having two minor children, aged 12 and 7 years. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are old ladies, aged 50 and 55 years. They had no matrimonial affairs with the complainant and her husband. Efforts have been made to implicate the entire family of the husband and false allegations have been levelled against them. There is tendency on the part of the wives to implicate all the family members of the husband, who even do not know anything about the marriage or dowry. Their case is fully covered by categories (iii), (iv) and (vii), as spelled out in the guiding principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan lal AIR 1991 SC 602. 3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent, who came present and contested the same. She pleaded in her reply that the petitioners are in a dominating position in the family and they took active and dominated role at the time of marriage. They had been demanding dowry in consideration of marriage. Specific dowry articles were also entrusted to them, which are mentioned in the list attached with the complaint. She pleaded in her reply that the petitioners are in a dominating position in the family and they took active and dominated role at the time of marriage. They had been demanding dowry in consideration of marriage. Specific dowry articles were also entrusted to them, which are mentioned in the list attached with the complaint. The trial court applied its judicial mind before taking the cognizance of the offences and they were ordered to be summoned after a prima facie case was found against them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 5. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that as per the prevailing tendency, the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners, who are the married sisters and sisters of the mother of the husband. Petitioners No. 1 and 4, whose marriage took place before the marriage of the complainant, had already been residing with their in-laws and petitioners No. 2 and 3. had also been residing with their in-laws. It is as a result of pressure tactics that they have been arrayed as an accused. Vague allegations have been levelled against them and it cannot be made out from the contents of the complaint that they committed any such offences. 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by the counsel for the respondent that it is specifically mentioned in the complaint that different dowry articles were entrusted to each of these petitioners and those articles are mentioned in the list annexed with the complaint. There are also specific allegations against them that they had been treating the respondent with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC are clearly made out from the contents of the complaint and the Judicial Magistrate, after applying his mind to the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant and finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, summoned them to stand their trial for those offences. There is no ground for quashing the complaint, the summoning order and the consequential proceedings. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in para No. 2 of the complaint, the respondent described the relationship of the petitioners with her husband-Gurpreet Singh. She also pleaded in that para that these petitioners actively participated in their marriage. However, it is not specifically mentioned therein that different dowry articles were entrusted to these petitioners. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in para No. 2 of the complaint, the respondent described the relationship of the petitioners with her husband-Gurpreet Singh. She also pleaded in that para that these petitioners actively participated in their marriage. However, it is not specifically mentioned therein that different dowry articles were entrusted to these petitioners. A table has been given in that para and against the name of these petitioners, particular articles, as mentioned in the list annexed with the complaint, are mentioned. There is nothing in the complaint from which it can be inferred that these specific articles were entrusted to them by the complainant party and they hand over these articles to the respondent. The nature of the articles itself suggests that those were more in the form of gifts to these petitioners than in the form of dowry meant for the respondent. The basic ingredients of Section 406 IPC are missing in the complaint. 8. So far as the allegations regarding the offence under Section 498-A IPC are concerned, those are vague in nature. It is pleaded in the complaint that the in-laws of the respondent had been giving her merciless beatings and had been torturing her to bring money from her parents. She did not mention in the complaint as to who were included in those in-laws. It is highly improbable that sisters of the husband, who had already been married before the marriage of the respondent and the sisters of the mother of the husband would be harassing the respondent or treating her with cruelty regarding the demand of dowry. There is tendency on the part of the wives to throw the net wider and to involve all the relatives of the husband for such like offences. The present case is one of the glaring example of such like attempts. 9. It has been recently been held by the Apex Court in Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjali and others 1976(3) SCC 736 that criminal proceedings may be quashed on the following grounds:- (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. (3) Where the discretion exercised by the magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible. (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction or absence of a complainant by legally competent authority and the like. 10. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken on there face value, make no case against the petitioners under Section 406 IPC. The allegations against them in the complaint are vague, improbable and no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 11. In view of the above discussion, this petition is hereby accepted. Complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 12.2.2008 and all the consequent proceedings are ordered to quashed qua the petitioners. --------------