Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055238
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) date of decision: january 24, 2013 sandeep kumar and others …petitioners versus state of haryana and another …respondents coram: hon’ble mr. justice naresh kumar sanghi present: mr. shilak ram hooda, advocate, for the petitioners. mr. shekhar mudgal, aag, haryana, for respondent no.1. naresh kumar sanghi, j.1. prayer in the present petition, filed under section 482, cr.p.c., is for quashing of fir no.2, dated 5.1.2012 (annexure p-2), registered at police station, women cell, sonepat, for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 498-a read with section 34, ipc.2. the brief facts of the case are that on 12.3.1996, the marriage of respondent no.2-complainant, sudesh, was solemnized with petitioner no.1, sandeep kumar. petitioner no.2, ram kumar, and petitioner no.3, nirmala devi, are the parents-in-law of respondent no.2-complainant. out of the said wedlock two children were born. crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -2- 3. from the inception of the marriage of respondent no.2-complainant and petitioner no.1, all the petitioners started demanding dowry and when she (complainant) failed to oblige them, then she was physically and mentally tortured by the petitioners. the contents of the fir by itself are self-explanatory and reads as under:- " to, sir, superintendent of police, sonepat, subject:- for taking legal action against 1. sandeep s/o sh. ram kumar (husband), 2. ram kumar s/o sh. rammehar (father-in-law), 3. nirmala devi w/o sh. ram kumar (mother-in-law) all residents of pana-11, village ismaila, tehsil and distt. rohtak. sir the applicant submits as under:- (1). that the marriage of the applicant took place on 12.03.1996 with accused no.1, according to hindu rites and ceremonies at village tihar khurd, district sonepat. the parents of the applicant gave dowry beyond their capacity in the marriage. (2) that when the applicant visited her matrimonial house for the first time the accused persons raised demand of motorcycle from her and their demand could not be met then after 10 days of the marriage accused no.1 came home after taking liquor and gave beating to the applicant and hurled abuses to her. accused nos. 2 and 3 also taunted the applicant and gave beating to her for bringing less dowry and said that you have came from poor family and they said that your parents have neither given good clothes for our family not gave dowry according to our status and for this reason we have been crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -3- lowered down in the fraternity. (3) that they made the applicant to from 4 a.m in the morning till late night even when she was ill and used to hurl abuses and gave beatings and i narrated all these to my father then my father made attempts to counsel the accused persons but all in vain and they hurled abuses to my father also and mis-behaved with him and my father died in the year 1997. they did not allow me to join last rites of my father. (4) that the applicant gave birth on 29.7.1997 to a female baby namely priyanka and on this the applicant was badly scolded for not given the birth to a male baby saying that they had wanted a boy. the applicant went on bearing the same in a hope that at some point of time the good sense will prevail with the accused persons and in a hope of good days to come. on 21.4.1999 the applicant gave birth to a male baby namely kuldeep and the applicant thought that not she would receive fair treatment but the accused persons did not mend themselves even on this. on the birth of the male baby the accused persons raised the demand for a car and rs. 2 lakh cash which the applicant could not pay and for this the applicant had been beaten badly and she had been kept hungry for several days. in the year 2004 a panchayat was convened in which many respectable of both the sides had assembled and the panchayat arrived at a conclusion that the applicant and the respondent would live separately from the other accused at sonepat and thereafter the applicant and accused no.1 started living at sonepat in a rented house and the applicant began bringing up crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -4- her children by doing labour work. accused no.1 used to take liquor and did not do any work and he used to gave beating daily to the applicant on asking by accused no.2 and 3. (5) that the marriage of the brother of applicant was fixed for 06.07.2008. the accused no.1 after giving beating to the applicant in her parental house left from there on that day. on 17.08.2008 accused no.1 gave fierce beating to the applicant and pressed her neck and gave danda blow on the back of the applicant and by the impact of that the flash of back of the complainant had damaged. the complainant got the intimation of this sent to and her parental house and thereafter she was brought to the hospital by her brother and the applicant was got treated by her parents. after this incident the applicant started living at sonepat alongwith both of her children and engaged in bringing them up by doing labour work. (6). that on 24.08.2008 the accused persons came to the house of the applicant at sonepat and after giving beating to her fled away from there alongwith the documents of rs. 50,000/- fixed deposit, rs. 80,000/- cash, chain of the applicant, ring, ear rings, one necklace set, mark sheet of 10th class and hospital documents of the son of the complainant. cancer treatment of son of complainant is going on. the accused persons did not render any help in the treatment of her son and they even did not enquire about health of her son and when he became healthy the accused persons forcibly took both the children at home. (7). on having been harassed the applicant filed a petition for divorce in crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -5- the court at sonepat which is pending in the court of smt. alka malik, adj.sonepat. during the pendency of this case also accused no.1 kept on coming to the house of applicant at sonepat and continued to beat her and used to give threats to the applicant for lifting the case. (8) that on the eve of the depawali the accused persons came to the house of the applicant and said that if she brings rs. 2 lakh cash and a car from her brothers then they are ready to keep her with them but the brothers of the applicant can not meet the demand of dowry raised by the accused persons because they are poor. therefore, your good self is requested to take legal action against the accused persons for harassing the applicant for dowry and for raising demand of dowry from the applicant and the dowry items which are in possession of the accused persons may be got handed over to the applicant after recovering from them. i shall be thankful. sd/- sudesh."4. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the contents of the fir, the mischief of section 498-a, ipc, was not attracted. he further submitted that no specific date, time and place of any incident attracting the rigor of section 498- a ipc has been mentioned. he further argued that in case respondent no.2-complainant was allegedly beaten or tortured by the petitioners, then the prosecution should have collected some medical evidence to corroborate the oral version of the complainant. he further submitted that respondent no.2- crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -6- complainant had started residing separately, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have treated her with cruelty.5. on the other hand, learned counsel for the state submitted that after thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under section 173, cr.p.c.) was submitted against the petitioners and after finding a prima facie case, the learned trial court had framed the charges. he further submitted that the case before the learned trial court is fixed for recording of the prosecution witnesses. therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.6. heard.7. there is no dispute with regard to the fact that even after framing of the charges, the high court can quash the fir provided it comes to the conclusion that its pendency would be abuse of the process of law. the petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing of the fir at this stage. there are specific averments with regard to demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment of respondent no.2-complainant at the hands of the petitioners. the three petitioners had given beatings to respondent no.2-complainant even after her shifting from in-laws house to another place. after thorough investigation, the charge- sheet (report under section 173, cr.p.c.) has also been submitted before the learned area judicial magistrate and finding a prima crm-m-1137-2012 (o&m) -7- facie case, even the charges have been framed and the case before the learned court below is fixed for recording of the evidence. therefore, no ground for quashing of the fir and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom is made out.8. dismissed. (naresh kumar sanghi) january 24, 2013 judge pkapoor
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2013 Sandeep Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No.2, dated 5.1.2012 (Annexure P-2), registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Sonepat, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.3.1996, the marriage of respondent No.2-complainant, Sudesh, was solemnized with petitioner No.1, Sandeep Kumar. Petitioner No.2, Ram Kumar, and petitioner No.3, Nirmala Devi, are the parents-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant. Out of the said wedlock two children were born. CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -2- 3. From the inception of the marriage of respondent No.2-complainant and petitioner No.1, all the petitioners started demanding dowry and when she (complainant) failed to oblige them, then she was physically and mentally tortured by the petitioners. The contents of the FIR by itself are self-explanatory and reads as under:- " To, Sir, Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, Subject:- For taking legal action against 1. Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Kumar (Husband), 2. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Rammehar (Father-in-law), 3. Nirmala Devi W/o Sh. Ram Kumar (Mother-in-law) all residents of Pana-11, Village Ismaila, Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak. Sir the applicant submits as under:- (1). That the marriage of the applicant took place on 12.03.1996 with accused No.1, according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at village Tihar Khurd, District Sonepat. The parents of the applicant gave dowry beyond their capacity in the marriage. (2) That when the applicant visited her matrimonial house for the first time the accused persons raised demand of motorcycle from her and their demand could not be met then after 10 days of the marriage accused No.1 came home after taking liquor and gave beating to the applicant and hurled abuses to her. Accused nos. 2 and 3 also taunted the applicant and gave beating to her for bringing less dowry and said that you have came from poor family and they said that your parents have neither given good clothes for our family not gave dowry according to our status and for this reason we have been CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -3- lowered down in the fraternity. (3) That they made the applicant to from 4 a.m in the morning till late night even when she was ill and used to hurl abuses and gave beatings and I narrated all these to my father then my father made attempts to counsel the accused persons but all in vain and they hurled abuses to my father also and mis-behaved with him and my father died in the year 1997. They did not allow me to join last rites of my father. (4) That the applicant gave birth on 29.7.1997 to a female baby namely Priyanka and on this the applicant was badly scolded for not given the birth to a male baby saying that they had wanted a boy. The applicant went on bearing the same in a hope that at some point of time the good sense will prevail with the accused persons and in a hope of good days to come. On 21.4.1999 the applicant gave birth to a male baby namely Kuldeep and the applicant thought that not she would receive fair treatment but the accused persons did not mend themselves even on this. On the birth of the male baby the accused persons raised the demand for a car and Rs. 2 lakh cash which the applicant could not pay and for this the applicant had been beaten badly and she had been kept hungry for several days. In the year 2004 a Panchayat was convened in which many respectable of both the sides had assembled and the Panchayat arrived at a conclusion that the applicant and the respondent would live separately from the other accused at Sonepat and thereafter the applicant and accused No.1 started living at Sonepat in a rented house and the applicant began bringing up CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -4- her children by doing labour work. Accused No.1 used to take liquor and did not do any work and he used to gave beating daily to the applicant on asking by accused No.2 and 3. (5) That the marriage of the brother of applicant was fixed for 06.07.2008. The accused No.1 after giving beating to the applicant in her parental house left from there on that day. On 17.08.2008 accused No.1 gave fierce beating to the applicant and pressed her neck and gave danda blow on the back of the applicant and by the impact of that the flash of back of the complainant had damaged. The complainant got the intimation of this sent to and her parental house and thereafter she was brought to the hospital by her brother and the applicant was got treated by her parents. After this incident the applicant started living at Sonepat alongwith both of her children and engaged in bringing them up by doing labour work. (6). That on 24.08.2008 the accused persons came to the house of the applicant at Sonepat and after giving beating to her fled away from there alongwith the documents of Rs. 50,000/- Fixed Deposit, Rs. 80,000/- cash, chain of the applicant, ring, ear rings, one necklace set, mark sheet of 10th class and hospital documents of the son of the complainant. Cancer treatment of son of complainant is going on. The accused persons did not render any help in the treatment of her son and they even did not enquire about health of her son and when he became healthy the accused persons forcibly took both the children at home. (7). On having been harassed the applicant filed a petition for divorce in CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -5- the court at Sonepat which is pending in the court of Smt. Alka Malik, ADJ.Sonepat. During the pendency of this case also accused No.1 kept on coming to the house of applicant at Sonepat and continued to beat her and used to give threats to the applicant for lifting the case. (8) That on the eve of the Depawali the accused persons came to the house of the applicant and said that if she brings Rs. 2 lakh cash and a car from her brothers then they are ready to keep her with them but the brothers of the applicant can not meet the demand of dowry raised by the accused persons because they are poor. Therefore, your good self is requested to take legal action against the accused persons for harassing the applicant for dowry and for raising demand of dowry from the applicant and the dowry items which are in possession of the accused persons may be got handed over to the applicant after recovering from them. I shall be thankful. Sd/- Sudesh."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the contents of the FIR, the mischief of Section 498-A, IPC, was not attracted. He further submitted that no specific date, time and place of any incident attracting the rigor of Section 498- A IPC has been mentioned. He further argued that in case respondent No.2-complainant was allegedly beaten or tortured by the petitioners, then the prosecution should have collected some medical evidence to corroborate the oral version of the complainant. He further submitted that respondent No.2- CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -6- complainant had started residing separately, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have treated her with cruelty.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that after thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was submitted against the petitioners and after finding a prima facie case, the learned Trial Court had framed the charges. He further submitted that the case before the learned Trial Court is fixed for recording of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that even after framing of the charges, the High Court can quash the FIR provided it comes to the conclusion that its pendency would be abuse of the process of law. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing of the FIR at this stage. There are specific averments with regard to demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment of respondent No.2-complainant at the hands of the petitioners. The three petitioners had given beatings to respondent No.2-complainant even after her shifting from in-laws house to another place. After thorough investigation, the charge- sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has also been submitted before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and finding a prima CRM-M-1137-2012 (O&M) -7- facie case, even the charges have been framed and the case before the learned Court below is fixed for recording of the evidence. Therefore, no ground for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom is made out.

8. Dismissed. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) January 24, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor