Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 130 (PNJ)

Kamaljit Kaur @ Kewal v. State of Punjab

2013-02-05

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Ms. Sabina J.: - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) seeking quashing of FIR No.129 dated 04.6.2008, under Sections 406,498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Renu Bala got married to Navdeep Singh in the year 2008. The petitioner had acted as a mediator at the time of marriage of the complainant as she was closely related to the husband of the complainant. The allegation as per the FIR against the petitioner is that she had taken Rs.35,000/- from the parents of the complainant for purchase of dowry articles. When the complainant contacted the petitioner after marriage, she refused to help the complainant and advised her to sort out her own problems. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was residing in Himachal Pradesh and had merely acted as a mediator at the time of marriage of the complainant with Navdeep Singh. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR did not constitute an offence under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. During the inquiry conducted by the Incharge, M.D. Cell, Khanna, it was found that the petitioner had also asked the complainant party to fulfil the demands raised by the in-laws of the complainant. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 6. During the inquiry conducted by the Incharge, M.D. Cell, Khanna, it was found that the petitioner had also asked the complainant party to fulfil the demands raised by the in-laws of the complainant. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that the only allegations levelled against the petitioner are that she had told the parents of the complainant that she may be given cash payment to enable the in-laws of the complainant to buy articles of their choice and the parents of the complainant had handed over Rs.35,000/- in cash to the petitioner for purchase of the said articles. Further the grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner had failed to resolve the problem of dowry between the complainant and her inlaws. The said allegations even if taken at their face value, cannot be said to constitute an offence under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the inquiry report Annexure R-1 reveals that it had transpired during the course of inquiry that when the complainant had narrated all the facts to the petitioner, she (petitioner) had said that the complainant should fulfil the demands of her in-laws otherwise she would be left in her parental house. A perusal of the inquiry report Annexure R-1 reveals that it had transpired during the course of inquiry that when the complainant had narrated all the facts to the petitioner, she (petitioner) had said that the complainant should fulfil the demands of her in-laws otherwise she would be left in her parental house. However, there is no such allegation levelled by the complainant in the FIR (Annexure P-1). 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as a perusal of the FIR itself does not lead to the inference that the petitioner has committed any criminal offence. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.129 dated 04.6.2008, under Sections 406,498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana, and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom qua the petitioner, are quashed. ----------------------