CRM M-8480 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-8480 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 07, 2012
Harjit Singh and another
.. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 127 dated 20.08.2009,
under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar,
Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arise therefrom.
Brief facts of the case are that Gurpreet Kaur respondent No.
2 lodged aforesaid FIR against nine persons including the petitioners as
CRM M-8480 of 2010 2
well as her husband Surjit Singh (non-petitioner) under Sections 498-
A/406 IPC alleging therein that she got married to Surjit Singh on
10.05.2006 by way of Anand Karj at Gurudwara Sahib, Ismailabad and the
remaining marriage programme was held at Maharaja Banquet Hall,
Ismailabad because at that time the parents of respondent no.2 were
residing at Village Naishi, District Kurukshetra. Thereafter, the family of
respondent no.2 shifted to Village Bishnandi, Tehsil Jaito, District
Faridkot. It is alleged in the FIR that in the marriage her parents had spent
about Rs. 12.00 lacs. She also alleges that about 20 Tolas of Gold was
given on her marriage, out of which chain to mother-in-law, 22 bangles to
sisters-in-law (Nanads), 2 bangles to sister-in-law (Jethani), Kara and rings
given to petitioner no.1 and a neckless set, weighing 3 tolas, 6 bangles
weighing 4 tolas, ear rings weighing 1-½ tolas were given to respondent
no.2. Apart from this number of jewellery, other articles and istridhan i.e.
200 utensils of steel, brass, kansi, one fridge and many others things of
common kitchen use, Colour TV, Washing machiner, furniture, godrej
almirah as detailed in the FIR (Annexure P/1) were also given. These
dowry articles (as mentioned in the FIR - Annexure P/1) were entrusted to
her in-laws. It is her case that her in-laws had promised that the same were
to be returned to respondent no.2 as and when demanded by her. It is also
mentioned that before the marriage ceremony, Thaka had taken place. At
that time also, Rs. 2 lac were given to Surjit Singh-husband for purchase of
car. He purchased the motorcycle and embezzled the remaining amount.
Thereafter, she stayed in her matrimonial home for about few weeks and
CRM M-8480 of 2010 3
during this period her in-laws started taunting that her parents had not
given sufficient dowry as per their status. They have not given a big car
according to their status. They started mal-treating respondent no.2. It is
the case of respondent no.2 that they used to tell her parents and the family
members that insufficient dowry had been given according to their status.
The parental family of respondent no.2 many times made the accused
understand not to taunt by saying about inadequate dowry. During this
period, respondent no.2 became pregnant. The parents of respondent no.2
told that they had already spent sufficient amount on the marriage and they
cannot give more. On this, the in-laws started mal-treating and harassing
respondent no.2. A female child, namely, Khushpreet Kaur was born. All
the expenses were borne by the parents of respondent no.2. At that time,
the in-laws of respondent no.2 demanded Rs. 2 lacs and pressed upon her
to bring the same, otherwise they would not allow her to enter the house. It
is alleged that the same has happened at the house of respondent no.2 in
the presence of various persons. It is alleged in the FIR that the in-laws
were habitual to use filthy language and threatened that if respondent no.2
came to the matrimonial house, she must bring a Safari Car and Rs. 2 lacs.
The demand continued to increase from time to time. Thereafter, inquiry
was conducted and FIR was registered. The FIR is very lengthy. The sum
and substance of the same has been extracted herein above.
Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed their respective
replies. Respondent no.1 in his reply has submitted that the FIR has been
registered after due enquiry. Challan has been presented and charge has
CRM M-8480 of 2010 4
been framed. The case has been fixed for prosecution evidence. It is
further submitted that FIR has been registered and during investigation it
has been found that petitioner no.1 is the real brother of the husband of
respondent no.1 and petitioner no.2 is Jethani of respondent No.2. During
investigation, it has been found that they took active part in the family
affairs and living separately is no excuse.
Respondent No.2 also submitted in her reply that sufficient
dowry was given. The behaviour of in-law was very harsh towards
respondent no.2. Many times demand was raised. When a famale child
was born to respondent no.2, they further demanded a car and threatened
that if respondent no.2 failed to bring Safari car and Rs.2 lacs then she
should not enter their house. The behavour of the in-laws was always
cruel towards respondent no.2 and they have mentally harassed her.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact
respondent No. 2 and Surjit Singh had solemnised the marriage by way of
Anand Karj in a very simple manner and no dowry articles were given or
accepted at the time of marriage by the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is elder
brother of husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner no.2 is the wife of
petitioner no.1 i.e. Jethani of respondent no.2. They are residing
separately. There is no allegation in the FIR that what demand the
petitioners raised. Only allegation against the petitioners are that some
articles were given to them at the time of marriage which are gift items
CRM M-8480 of 2010 5
and cannot be treated as dowry articles specifically when the petitioners
never made a demand of any articles from the in-laws of Surjit Singh.
They will not be otherwise benefitted from the alleged dowry articles as
they were already residing separately from their parents and other
members of the family.
Learned Counsel for the State, as well as, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke v. State of Haryana, 2004(2)
RCR(Criminal) 398 Rajinder Mohan Kashyap v. Om Parkash Sharma,
2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 274, Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti, 2010
(1) RCR (Crl.) 115 and Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand
and another, 2010(4) RCR (Crl.) 45. Mr. Shukla then submitted that it has
become a tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate all the family
members, some times even the distant relatives on vague allegations for
certain oblique motives.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
there are no specific allegations against the petitioners with regard to
entrustment of dowry articles and causing harassment and taunting her by
the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are vague and
sweeping without any basis and without mentioning any specific averment
and instances.
CRM M-8480 of 2010 6
The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon a
judgment of this Court rendered in Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of
Punjab, 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332 lastly contended that may be the
challan against the petitioners has since been filed by the prosecution
agency and charge has been framed by the Court, yet there is no absolute
bar to entertain the petition under Section 482 as each case is to be
examined on its own facts.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions Mr. Shukla prays
for quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
qua the present petitioners.
While controverting the submissions advanced by Mr. Shukla,
Mr. Kataria and the learned State counsel stated that this is not the stage
for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners as the challan
against all has already been filed by the prosecution agency, and even
charge has been framed, therefore, all the pleas taken herein by the
petitioners can very well be agitated at the appropriate stage before the
trial Court.
On merits, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that
the petitioners have no cause as there are specific allegations against each
of them and the plea projected by the petitioners. Rather the complainant
was insulted by the petitioners side on different dates whenever they tried
to resolve the dispute. The Panchayats were convened many a times for the
amicable settlement of the dispute. He then contended that the dowry
articles have not been returned till date and, therefore, the petitioners have
CRM M-8480 of 2010 7
no escape from the liability. Prima facie also Sections 498-A/406 IPC are
attracted qua the petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief
sought herein. The aforesaid petitioners are very well connected with
every incident that happened in the matrimonial home.
Learned State counsel adopted the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
After hearing rival contentions of either side and going
through the records minutely, I am of the view that respondent no.2 has no
case against the petitioners and the instant petition qua them deserves to be
allowed. While arriving at this conclusion, I have not only appreciated the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand but also kept in
consideration that the things have taken a reverse trend now-a-days and
women are abusing beneficial provision of Section 498-A IPC by
implicating all the family members of her in-laws. It is quite often noticed
by the Courts that the cases of this type create some what formidable
hurdle in reconciliation efforts and give rise to lot of bickerings between
the two families. Parties rush to the Court in a huff in matrimonial cases.
In some judgments a suggestion is also given to the Law Commission and
the Parliament that if Section 498-A IPC has to continue on the statute
book in the same form, it should be made a non-cognizable and a bailable
offence so that the provisions are not misused to harass innocent people.
I am quite conscious of the settled legal position that generally
the proceedings should not be quashed when the challan is filed by the
prosecution agency and charge is framed and thereafter the exercise should
CRM M-8480 of 2010 8
be left to the trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
But at the same time there is no hard and fast rule that the proceedings
cannot be quashed after the filing of the challan and the framing of charge.
It depends upon the facts of each case. It is, however, the duty of the Court
to see that the stream of justice is kept clean. In Harjinder Kaur's case
(supra), the same issue had cropped up and this Court while relying upon
certain judgments of Apex Court and of this Court held that there is no bar
to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even after filing of the
challan or even after framing of the charge. I am appreciating the case in
hand from that angle qua certain accused booked in this case.
I have perused the FIR very minutely. Although either side
has not placed on record the documents of challan and the charge framed
for its perusal but in my considered view the prosecution should go by
what is alleged in the FIR (Annexure P-1). A bare perusal of the FIR
indicates that it has been drafted with certain oblique reasons so that all
the family members of in-laws of respondent no.2 are taken in. The
petitioners have been implicated in this case with the allegation that
respondent no.2 was being harassed at the behest of the petitioners, who
are elder brother (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) of respondent No.2. In
the FIR it is stated that several dowry articles including Istridhan were
given to the respondent No.2 exclusively for her use. I am surprised as to
how the petitioners can be said to have any nexus with the entrustment of
dowry articles when there is no specific allegations except the fact that
some customary gifts were given to the petitioners which cannot be treated
CRM M-8480 of 2010 9
as dowry articles. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused with the
general allegations of demand of dowry, entrustment of dowry articles and
the harassment at their hands. The petitioners are residing separately, this
fact has been admitted in the reply of respondent no.1 wherein it is
mentioned that residing separately is no excuse. They cannot even be
remotely connected with both the offences as alleged viz. 498-A/406 IPC.
In my considered view, their involvement in the instant case is an outcome
of usual hatred in the mind of respondent no.2 and her parents after the
matrimonial discord. This rather goes to strengthen my observation that a
tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases.
In Rajinder Mohan Kashyap's case (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court while quashing the
proceedings qua some of the family members of in-laws of the wife has
also observed that it has become a tendency in matrimonial disputes to
implicate all the family members, even some time the distant relations, on
the vague allegations. In the said judgment this Court has relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 761 (SC) in which their
Lordships have observed as under :-
".... Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must
CRM M-8480 of 2010 10
reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the
nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof
and would that be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed in bringing charge home to the accused."
Another judgment rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case
(supra) relied by Mr. Sukla, this Court while relying upon a judgment of
Apex Court rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, 2000(2)
RCR(Crl.) 695 (SC) : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their
Lordships have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all
the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused.
My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and others v. State of Tamil
Nadu, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 68 (SC) in which their Lordships while
quashing the proceedings against sister-in-law who was staying at a
different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in a many
relations of the husband.
Another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2005(3) RCR
(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had
sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the "action"
and not the "section" may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the
provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant
CRM M-8480 of 2010 11
appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing
with the dowry menace, however, observed in para 17 as under :-
"The object of the provisions is prevention of the dowry
menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the
petitioner many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with
oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused
does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy (ignominy ?)
suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse
media coverage adds to the misery. The question,
therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to
prevent abuse of the well- intentioned provision. Merely
because the provision is constitutional and intra vires,
does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck
personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may,
therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out
ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or
allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the
Courts have to take care of the situation within the
existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike
at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the
provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The
provision is intended to be used a shield and not an
assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a
prank, assistance and protection may not be available
when the actual "wol f" appears. There is no question of
investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the
allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula
in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and
cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of
every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty
CRM M-8480 of 2010 12
and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived
notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the
petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts
start with the presumptions that the accused persons are
guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This
is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain
statutory presumptions are drawn which again are
rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the
investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog
and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see
that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account
of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is
equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence
is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial
evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid
down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in
view."
In Neelu Chopra's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:-
“5. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of
the sections and the language of those sections is not be
all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought
to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and the role played
by each and every accused in committing of that offence.
When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague.
It does not show as to which accused has committed what
offence and what is the exact role played by these
appellants in the commission of offence. There could be
said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are
made against him more precisely but he is no more and
CRM M-8480 of 2010 13
has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would
be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to
continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present
appellants herein on the basis of vague and general
complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the
appellants.
6. The High Court has merely mentioned that the
allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery
articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners.
Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband,
there is no question of the present appellants being in
possession of the appellants. This is apart from the fact
that it has already been expressed by us that there is no
mention of the date on which the said ornaments, if any,
were entrusted to the appellants or even the date when
they were demanded back and were refused to be given
back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the
offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we do not
find any material or allegation worth the name against
the present appellants. All the allegations appear to be
against the Rajesh.”
In the latest judgment in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing
in our country. All the courts in our country including this
court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
CRM M-8480 of 2010 14
emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
which reads as under :-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
'cruelty' means :-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand."
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the
heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large number of such
complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed
with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are
also a matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
CRM M-8480 of 2010 15
social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished.
They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small
incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of
their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of
the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not
lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find
out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all
his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and
must take pragmatic realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations who had been
CRM M-8480 of 2010 16
living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited
the place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care
and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is
also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin
the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is
warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.
The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a
very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also
not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of
ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these
complaints have not only flooded the courts but also
have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that
the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the
existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take
into consideration the informed public opinion and the
pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary
CRM M-8480 of 2010 17
changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the
Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law
Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,
Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble
Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in
the larger interest of the society.”
Taking into consideration the totality of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the instant case and following the rationale of the
judgments referred herein above, specifically Preeti Gupta's case (supra),
Neelu Chopra's case (supra) and Sushil Kumar Sharma's case (supra), in
my considered view, the instant petition qua the present petitioners
deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, the instant petition is partly allowed and FIR No.
127, dated 20.08.2009, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police
Station Sadar Faridkot and all further proceedings arising therefrom
including presentation of challan and charge framed qua the present
petitioners are hereby quashed.
September 07, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh]
vkd Judge
