CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision :
16. 08.2013 Mangal Singh ..Petitioner Versus Amarjot Kaur ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the respondent.
REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRM-14145-2013 Allowed as prayed for.
Annexures P4 & P5 are taken on record.
CRM-M-30312-2011 The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”.) for quashing of complaint No.215 of 14.06.2010 captioned Amarjot Kaur versus Navdeep Singh and others pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
Briefly stated, as per averments of the petitioner, Amarjot Kaur was married with Navdeep Singh on 18.03.2007.
The petitioner is a resident of village Miani, District Kapurthala and running an electric shop after his retirement from the bank.
There was some dispute between the respondent and her husband and the respondent filed a complaint against Navdeep Singh (husband- accused No.1).Satinderjit Kaur (mother-in-law - Davinder Kumar 2013.08.26 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 2 accused No.2).Nirmal Singh (father-in-law - accused No.3) and the present petitioner (accused No.4) under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC.
The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya summoned the petitioner under Section 406 IPC and all other accused have been summoned under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.
The complaint as well as summoning order dated 07.04.2011 are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner as no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner, as per the allegations of the complaint while examined in the light of ingredients of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is stated to be mediator in the marriage of the complainant and Navdeep Singh.
The petitioner is a resident of village Miani, District Kapurthala, therefore, he is residing at a long distance from the matrimonial home of complainant Amarjot Kaur namely House No.32/33 Moon Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar.
It is further submitted that as per the allegations, a large petti containing beddings including quilts, mattresses, blankets etc.was entrusted to accused No.3 & 4, which was got loaded on the bus by the said accused.
Further allegations against the petitioner are that he is a main advisor of accused No.1 to 3 and he used to visit their house 3 to 4 times a month and he also used to say that since the complainant's father had sufficient money, the complainant should bring money from her father, so that business of Nirmal Singh and Navdeep Singh can be expanded.
In the month of July, 2009 when accused No.4 came to their house, the complainant requested him to hand over the articles which were entrusted to them jointly at the time of marriage, he told the complainant point blank that whatever articles CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 3 were in their possession would not be given back to her and the complainant should stop thinking about it.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is none of the allegations of the complaint that petti including articles contained therein were not taken to her matrimonial home or the same were taken away by the petitioner to his house.
It is further argued that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in an anxiety to implicate maximum number of family members of the husband.
It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in issuing a process against the petitioner for facing trial under Section 406 IPC.
Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that the complainant has raised categoric and specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to entrustment of articles of her Istridhan and refusal of the petitioner to return those articles, a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner and he has been rightly summoned for facing trial under Section 406 IPC.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
A perusal of averments contained in para 6 of the complaint makes it evident that the allegations against the petitioner are that a large petti containing beddings including quilts, mattresses, blankets etc.was entrusted to accused No.3 & 4, got loaded by them on a bus.
Accused No.3 is Nirmal Singh, father in-law of the complainant.
It is none of the plea of the complainant that the said petti including its articles did not reach her CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 4 matrimonial home much less taken away by the petitioner.
A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent would make the things more apparent.
A relevant extract from reply in para (e) reads thus:- “..........that all the Istridhan or dowry articles were entrusted to the husband and in-laws family of respondent in lieu of marriage of respondent with Navdeep Singh, even in the marriage sufficient costly goods were entrusted to the mediator also, and as a matter of fact, all the goods / dowry articles have been taken to the house of Navdeep Singh and not to the house of anybody else.”
The averments contained in the reply reveals that articles of Istridhan belonging to the complainant were taken to her matrimonial home.
Even if we assume for the sake of arguments that the petti containing beddings was entrusted to the petitioner and father-in-law of the respondent jointly, once that petti had reached the matrimonial home of the complainant and the present petitioner is admittedly not a resident of that house, the petitioner cannot be indicted for commission of offence of criminal breach of trust.
It appears that as the petitioner happened to be a mediator in the marriage of the complainant and Navdeep Singh and the complainant developed marital differences with her husband, she has implicated the petitioner as an accused in a zeal and anxiety to rope in as many as husband's relations as possible.
The criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, are nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law.
Before parting with this order, it is appropriate to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta & another versus State of CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 5 Jharkhand & another, 2010(7).SCC, 667 was pained to observe in para 30, 31, and 35 of the judgment as extracted hereinbelow:- “30.
It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code 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 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.”
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 CRM-M No.30312 of 2011(O&M) 6 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 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.”
When the facts and circumstances of the instant case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in various judgments and the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta's case (supra).I have no hesitation to hold that it would be unfair to compel the petitioner to undergo the rigor of criminal trial.
In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to quash the complaint and proceedings emanating therefrom qua the petitioner.
Disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 16, 2013.
Davinder Kumar