Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 894 (PNJ)

Pirthi Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana

2013-07-22

Inderjit Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Pirthi Singh Chauhan, Satwanti Devi and Surinder Pal Singh -petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 26.4.2011, whereby order for framing of charge (Annexure- P.10) and the order of the same date framing the charges against the petitioners out of the purview of charge-sheet without leading any evidence to that effect (Annexure-P.11) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure-P.12) passed in Criminal Revision No.74 dated 23.5.2011/18.7.2012 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in FIR No.265 dated 18.4.2010 registered at Police Station City Jind and in Criminal Case No.31/1 of 2011, whereby the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet under Section 498-A IPC only against the petitioners and now where the petitioners have been charged for the offences under Section 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. 2. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner No.3 was solemnized with Neetu Bala daughter of late Shri Bhagwat Swarup according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Marriage was simple and dowry-less. Neetu Bala resided with petitioner No.3 at the residence of petitioner No.1 at Village Seeudi (Bitna), Post Office Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. There was no occasion with petitioner No.3 and Neetu Bala to reside as husband and wife at Jind from 12.2.2009 to 1.7.2009. Raj Bala and Neetu Bala filed the complaint under Section 498- A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, who directed the Women Cell to inquire into the matter. On receiving the report of Women Cell, the original complaint was sent to Police Station City Jind for lodging the FIR and then FIR was registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed order framing charges vide her order dated 26.4.2011 and charged the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. Criminal revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Jind challenging the order dated 26.4.2011 which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide order dated 6.7.2012. These orders have been challenged on the basis that these are against the law. 3. At the time of arguments, petitioner No.1, who is an Advocate and appeared in person, contended that no offence is made out at Jind. These orders have been challenged on the basis that these are against the law. 3. At the time of arguments, petitioner No.1, who is an Advocate and appeared in person, contended that no offence is made out at Jind. The complaint was lodged by Raj Bala mother of Neetu Bala, mother-inlaw of petitioner No.3, but it was signed by Raj Bala and Neetu Bala. It is also stated that the allegations contained in the FIR do not make out a case of harassment filed by the complainants on account of dowry at Jind. Learned counsel further contended that learned trial Court wrongly framed charges under Section 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused as in the heading of the complaint only offence under Section 498-A IPC has been written. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State argued that at the time of framing of charge, only the Court is to see only whether there is prima facie case made out from the documents and statements relied upon by the prosecution in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Assistant Advocate General also argued that the Court at Jind has also the jurisdiction to try this case as the marriage took place at Jind and dowry articles had been given at the time of marriage which means that these were entrusted at the time of marriage at Jind. Learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of framing charges and charge-sheet and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal revision petition in this quashing petition. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only to see whether there is a prima facie case made out from the documents as well as statements relied upon by the prosecution. It is also settled law that at this stage the Court is not to weigh evidence for the purpose of conviction. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is only to see whether there is a prima facie case made out from the documents as well as statements relied upon by the prosecution. It is also settled law that at this stage the Court is not to weigh evidence for the purpose of conviction. The Court is only to see whether it is a case of some evidence or it is case of no evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments has no where pointed out that it is a case of no evidence. 7. I have perused the complaint as well as the FIR. There are allegations regarding sufficient dowry being given to the accused persons in the shape of cash, clothes, ornaments etc. and it is written that list of dowry articles is also annexed. Again a perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioners used to demand Rs.5 Lacs and a motor car in addition to the dowry already given. In the FIR, there are also allegations that accused started taunting, insulting, snubbing and maltreating Neetu Bala after the marriage and kept her without food and starved for days together. It is stated that accused No.1 never paid a penny for the maintenance of Neetu Bala. The whole salary was grabbed by his father accused No.2. Accused No.3 Satwanti Devi tortured the complainant Neetu Bala on the instigation of accused No.2 on many occasions. From the perusal of the FIR itself, it cannot be held that no case is made out. The mere fact that mother of Neetu Bala, namely, Raj Bala also signed the complaint, in no way, can be held as illegality. On the basis of complaint, the Police has registered the FIR. It is also settled law that at the time of framing of the charge, the defence of the accused is not to be looked into. If it will be so, then it will amount to acquit the accused without giving opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence. At the time of framing of the charge, it is also settled law that the documents of the accused are not to be seen. From the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. a prima facie case is made out. At the time of framing of the charge, it is also settled law that the documents of the accused are not to be seen. From the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. a prima facie case is made out. There is no illegality in framing the charge for the offence under Section 406 IPC also by the Court. Even if Section 406 is not written in the complaint, it will be of no effect. The Court is to see from the documents and statements recorded during investigation as to what offence prima facie is made out. On this ground also the chargesheet cannot be quashed. 8. As regards the territorial jurisdiction, Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. will apply which states that any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Courts at Jind, where the dowry articles were received by the accused by way of entrustment, have the jurisdiction. It would have been different if the case would have been for the offence under Section 498-A IPC only. But the present case is for the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and the Courts at Jind have the territorial jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 513; Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, AIR 2004 SC 4286 and of this Court in Sheela Kaushik v. The State of Haryana and another, 2003 (3) AICLR 759. All these cases having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in none of the cases dowry articles were entrusted at the place of trial. Therefore, from the above, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are correct and as per law and do not require for any interference. 10. Therefore, from the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————