Judgment:
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Accused Subash Rani and Neena have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint Annexure PI as well as summoning order Annexure P3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, complainant Sunita Puri was married to Mr. Love Kumar on 13.8.1988 at jalandhar. In this wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 2.5.1989. Petitioner Subash Rani is mother and petitioner Neena is sister of Love Kumar. Complainant-respondent Sunita Puri filed a complaint against Love Kumar and these petitioners under Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 406/420/498-A of IPC. In her preliminary evidence, she examined herself as well as two other witnesses to corroborate her testimony. Alongwith the complaint, she filed list of dowry articles/ornaments which were given to the accused persons at the time of Thaka, Shagun, Utsav, and marriage. The total costs of these articles is shown to be Rs. 1,36,212/-. On the basis of preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 406/498-A, IPC is made out against all the accused persons and hence summoning order Annexure P3 was passed.
3. The petitioners' learned Counsel contended that in the complaint there is no specific averment about the entrustment of the dowry articles to these petitioners, nor is there averment that the complainant ever demanded back these dowry articles and they declined. He also submitted that there is no allegation that these petitioners ever demanded dowry and when their demand was not satisfied, they tortured the complainant. According to him, no dowry article is in possession of these petitioners. To support his contentions, he has relied on Partap & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 37 (SC); Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1992(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 125 (Pb. & Hry.); BalKrishan v. Poonam, 1987(1) RCR 657; and Jasbir Kaur v Kamaljit Kaur,1988(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 1020 (Pb. & Hry.). Lastly he submitted that the complaint is mala fide and amounts to abuse of process of Court so far as these petitioners are concerned. Petitioner Neena is younger sister of Love Kumar and at the time when the complainant was married to Love Kumar, Neena was school-going girl.
4. The respondent-complainant's learned Counsel vehemently argued that from the averments made in the complaint as well as from tine evidence adduced by the complainant, all the aforementioned offences were prima facie made out. High Court in quashment proceedings should not re-weigh the evidence and scuttle the complaint case at the initial stage. The complainant should be given a fair opportunity to prove her allegations against the petitioners as well. He read over,the complaint and also the evidence recorded at the preliminary stage before the lower Court and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint Annexure PI as well as in the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence, he prayed that the quashment proceedings be dismissed.
5. In Bal Krishan's and Jasbir Kaur's case (supra), Single Bench of this High Court has considered the alleged offence under Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibi- tion Act and has held that as no specific allegation regarding entrustment of any article of dowry to any particular person; nor of any particular time and occasion when the return of such article was demanded by wife and refused to her are made in the complaint, the complaint is liable to be quashed. In Radha Rani v. Pannod Kumar, 1995 Supplementary Vol.4, Supreme Court Cases 491, the Apex Court considered the complaint case which a wife filed against her husband, father- in-law, mother-in-law and other in-laws under Section 406, I PC. Although the complaint was quashed by the High Court, the Apex Court held that allegations of entrustment of articles and cash made in the complaint were sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. There was justification in taking cognizance of the case, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient, the correchiess of which will have to be gone into in the trial of the case.
6. In Sudhir Kumar's case (supra), complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC was filed by the wife against her husband and other relations of her husband for misappropriation of dowry articles. A Single Bench of this High Court held that it is difficult to accept that dowry articles remained in possession of persons other than husband. Thus, FIR qua other relations of the husband was quashed. In Partap's case (supra), the wife lodged a complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC against her husband and his mother alleging that they were taunting her for not bringing Maruti car in dowry, but as time, date and place of alleged taunts were not mentioned in the FIR, it was quashed so far as offence under Section 498-A, IPC was concerned.
7. In Partibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 AIR S.C. 628 the Apex Court has held that when a 'istri-dhan is entrusted to the husband and in-laws, wife's absolute ownership does not stand transferred into co-ownership or partnership. Husband and in-laws being trustees of such property are bound to return the same if and when demanded by married woman. Criminal proceedings for its misap- propriation against husband of in-laws is maintainable. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v.K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1995(6) SCC 194, the Apex Court held '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 First Information Report 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'.
8. Again in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Pirajikalpatri, 1996(1) All India Criminal Law Reported 15 (SC), the Apex Court has held that quashing of criminal proceedings at the initial stage by the High Court is not justified. Mala fides or animus of complainant or prosecution are not relevant at that stage. If on the basis of allegations in the complaint a prima facie case is made out, the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. This power should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.
9. In this case, a bare perusal of the complaint, list of articles attached thereto and summoning order reveal that there are allegations made in the complaint that these dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, they were entrusted with the accused persons, the complainant demanded these dowry articles from the accused persons but was denied. She has also pleaded as well as proved that these accused persons demanded more dowry and when the demand was not met, she was tortured by all of them. She has specifically averred that ornaments are kept by accused Subash Rani, relying on her evidence, the lower Court has arrived at a conclusion that from this evidence prima facie case is made out under Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC against all the accused persons.
10. This is not the rarest of rare cases wherein this extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court of quashing complaint should be exercised. This Court cannot revoke or re-evaluate the evidence adduced by the complainant before the lower Court to arrive at a different conclusion. Motive, mala fides or animos are not relevant factors at this stage of quashment The complainant should be given a fair opportunity to prove her allegations against the accused persons. She is a helpless married woman who has been driven out from the matrimonial home by the accused persons, her dowry articles are retained by them, have not been returned to her despite her demands. If she is not allowed a fair chance to get redressal in the Court of first instance she will be utterly dismayed and disap- pointed.
11. Thus, in my considered view, the complaint and the summoning order cannot be quashed at this initial stage of the criminal case. It does not amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Resultantly, petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is hereby dismissed. The petitioners' learned Counsel made a request that the petitioners being ladies, be not forced to attend the Criminal Court regularly and they be exempted from their personal appearance. Considering the above facts, these petitioners are hereby exempted from personal appearance in the said criminal case except on the dates when charges are to be framed against them and when they are to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, if they are so charge- sheeted.