CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-28862 of 2012 Date of Decision:- 23.4.2014 Baldev Raj, DIG (Retd.) & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.P.S.Goraya, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. AG Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, the marriage of complainant Smt.Shaweta d/o Ashok Kumar Sarangal (respondent No.6) (for brevity “the complainant”.), was solemnized with Partish Raj son of petitioners Baldev Raj & Kanta Kumari, on 29.4.2008, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies in Hotel New Fortune, Jalandhar. The complainant claimed that the golden ornaments and other dowry articles were given to the accused by her parents at the time of engagement and marriage, by spending a huge amount of ` 10 to 11 lacs, (the details of which is mentioned therein in the list). The accused were Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 2 stated to have come to the house of her parents, ten days prior to the marriage and asked them to give luggage/dowry articles as per the list supplied by them as per their status. It was claimed that besides the customary gifts, clothes, fridge, almirah and other traditional items were also given at the time of marriage. Although the parents of the complainant had given more than sufficient dowry articles and cash beyond their capacity, but still, the accused were not satisfied. After solemnization of the marriage, the couple resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a son, namely Gaurish was born out of their wedlock.
2. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that immediately, after solemnization of the marriage, the accused started harassing and taunting the complainant on the ground that they were expecting a car or ` 5 lacs in lieu thereof, but her parents did not give the car or cash. They repeatedly demanded car. She showed her inability to fulfill the illegal demand of car by the accused. Thereafter, they gave beating and threatened her to turn out of her matrimonial home. In pursuance thereof, her parents deposited ` 25,000/- in the month of May, 2008 and ` 25,000/- in the month of July, 2008 in her account. However, the amount was withdrawn by the accused. It has been specifically mentioned that when the complainant became pregnant, the accused refused to bear the expenses of her delivery on the ground that her parents have neither given car nor paid an amount of ` 5 lacs in this regard. On 10.3.2009, the accused have turned her out of the matrimonial home and threatened that in case, she did not bring the pointed amount or car, then, there is no place for her in her matrimonial home. A biradari panchayat was convened and parents of the complainant requested the accused to keep her in her matrimonial home, but in vain. The accused Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 3 reiterated the demand of ` 5 lacs and the car. That means, very direct and specific allegations of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioners in the earlier complaint (Annexure P3) and impugned FIR (Annexure P1).
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, according to the complainant that she was harassed, tortured, beaten up and was treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the accused. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners and their son Partish Raj, vide FIR No.13 dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Jalandhar in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioners-accused have straightway jumped to prefer the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.
5. Sequelly, the case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. The allegations of demand of dowry articles have not been substantiated in accordance with law. The list of dowry articles is not duly signed by the parties as per the requirement of the rules framed under The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Dowry Act”.). Petitioner No.1 was stated to be a retired DIG from Railway Protection Force, whereas petitioner No.2 is a retired teacher. There is a Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 4 contradiction in the number of the accused mentioned in the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and earlier complaint (Annexure P3) filed by the complainant. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto at this initial stage.
6. The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed their separate replies, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid the repetition of facts, suffice it to say that the respondents have inter-alia reiterated all the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P1) and the earlier complaint (Annexure P3) filed by the complainant. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
7. At the very outset, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Hon'ble Apex Court has authoritatively held, in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR1992Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92, that the criminal prosecution can only be quashed in rarest of rare case at the initial stage as per the following conditions:- (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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. (ii) 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 S.156(1) of the Code except under an Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 5 order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (iii)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (v) 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. (vi) 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.”. 8. Not only that, again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Jeffery J.Diermeier & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 183, having interpreted the scope of section 482 Cr.PC, has ruled (para 16) as under:-
“16. Before addressing the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to notice the scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The Section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 6 and not to produce injustice.”. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties at some length, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
10. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the list of dowry articles is not signed by the parties as per the requirement of the rules framed under the Dowry Act, there is a contradiction in the number of the accused mentioned in the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and earlier complaint (Annexure P3) filed by the complainant and since the petitioners have been falsely implicated, so, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed, are neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Anr. JT2011(11) SC177are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein both spouses sought divorce by mutual consent in the year 2008. The wife was examined in Court at both occasions and she has also filed a suit for declaration that decree of divorce was obtained by fraud and hence a nullity. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against the accused u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Sections 406, 498-A, 376 and 120-B IPC. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that permitting the wife to continue the criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act would be travesty of justice and hence warrants quashing.
11. Similarly, it was held by this Court in case Nanak Chand and ors. v. State of Haryana and anr. 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 363 and Delhi High Court in case Smt.Neera Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 7 and Ors. 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 287 that such allegations are levelled after breaking down the marriage and if the manner of cruel treatment whether physical or mental are not specifically disclosed, then, no offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC is made out.
12. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in- below.
13. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short and significant question, though important, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in the instant petition is as to whether the present criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed at this initial stage or not?.
14. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this respect.
15. As is evident from the record that very direct and serious allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, beatings and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to the present petitioners in the manner indicated here-in-above. The mere facts that the list of dowry articles is not signed by both the parties and there is a contradiction in the number of accused mentioned in the earlier complaint (Annexure P3) by the complainant and in the present FIR (Annexure P1), ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to quash the impugned FIR at this initial stage, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioners.
16. Likewise, the cosmetic contention of learned counsel that Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 8 allegations of entrustment, demand of dowry and misappropriation levelled against the petitioners are not substantiated by any cogent evidence on record, again lacks merit. As mentioned here-in-above, the direct allegations of harassment, taunting, beating, cruelty and commission of heinous offences are attributed to the petitioners. The stage of production of evidence has not yet reached in the main case. All other submissions relatable to appreciation of evidence (as now sought to be urged on their behalf) and what is the effect of non-compliance of the rules framed under the Dowry Act, inter-alia, would be the moot points to be decided after receiving the evidence of the parties, during the course of trial by the trial Court. If all such intricate questions, which require determination by the trial Court, are to be decided by this Court in the absence of any evidence in this respect, in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.PC, then the sanctity of the trial would pale into insignificance and amount to nullify the statutory procedure of trial as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, to me, is not legally permissible.
17. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusation would not be sustained, are the functions of the trial Judge to do so. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Reliance in this connection can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi and another 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 733 :
2009. (1) Recent Apex Judgments Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28862 of 2012 9 (R.A.J.) 462 : (2009) 2 SCC147 18. Therefore, the Bench mark set out in the aforesaid judgments and essential ingredients for quashing the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) at this initial stage are totally lacking in this case. Hence, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu”. deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the ratio of law laid down in the indicated judgments “mutatis mutandis”. is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
19. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
20. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
21. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction. Sd/- 23.4.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter?. Yes/No Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh