Present: Mr. P.L.Verma Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 Date of Decision: September 11, 2013 Jamsheeda and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.P.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Param Preet Singh Paul, DAG, Punjab for respondent-State.

Ms.Vandana, Advocate, for respondent No.2 *** REKHA MITTAL, J.

The petitioners pray for quashing of FIR No.488 dated 10.10.2011 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-55, Faridabad and proceedings emanating therefrom.

Jamsheeda wife of Arshad, Sarjeen wife of Jakkir and Mubina wife of Mubarik are married sisters of Mubin with whom the complainant performed marriage on 2.4.2006 as per muslim law.

Tofeek, petitioner No.4 is the younger brother of Mubin, the main accused in the case.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that Mubin divorced his wife complainant Shahijaan (respondent herein) on 20.12.2010 by saying Talak Talak Talak in the presence of witnesses.

The complainant is living Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 -2- with her parents at Dhoj in District Faridabad.

Mubin, husband of the complainant performed marriage with younger sister of the complainant and father of the complainant lodged FIR No.110 dated 21.3.2011 for offence under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC against Mubin and otheRs.The present FIR has been lodged by the complainant as a counter blast to wreak vengeance against her husband and his family membeRs.It is argued that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners are general and vague in nature.

Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the married sisters of Mubin and they are living separately along with their husbands and children and have nothing to do with affairs of their parental family.

Petitioner No.4, younger brother of Mubin, is less than 18 years of age and he was barely 12 years of age at the time of marriage of the complainant with Mubin as he was born on 8.12.1994.

It is further argued that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in an anxiety to involve maximum relations of the husband in the crime.

Respondent No.2 put in appearance on receipt of notice but later she was not represented by any counsel nor any reply was filed on her behalf to counter the case of the petitioneRs.Counsel for the respondent-State contends that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.was prepared on 2.3.2012, the challan was presented in the Court on 9.6.2012 and the case is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

It is further submitted that in view of allegations set up by the complainant, the petitioners are prima facie guilty of committing offence under Sections 498- A, 406, 506 IPC and they are liable to face the proceedings pending before Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 -3- the trial Court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

A perusal of the fiRs.information report substantiates the plea of petitioners No.1 to 3 that they are the married sisters of Mubin (husband of the complainant) and they are residing in their matrimonial homes with their respective husbands.

There are no allegations in the FIR if any of the articles of stridhan belonging to the complainant was entrusted to the petitioneRs.The complainant has raised general and omnibus allegations that the accused including the petitioners had been subjecting her to beatings, maltreatment and cruelty in connection with demand of Maruti car.

No date, month or year of the said demand or harassment including beatings has been mentioned.

The complainant has only made reference to an occurrence which allegedly took place on 25.12.2010.

However, it is not mentioned that she was given beatings by the accused on that date in connection with demand of dowry.

There is no specific allegation as to which of the accused took her necklace and ear rings on that day.

She has further alleged that her jewellery articles lying in a box, were distributed amongst her father-in-law, sisters-in-law and devar.

She has not specifically mentioned as to what jewellery articles were lying in the box which were taken away by the accused.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta and another versus State of Jharkhand and another 2010(7) SCC667has expressed its anguish over large number of dowry harassment cases which are not bona fide.

It has been observed that large number of complaints are filed either on the advice of members of Bar or with their concurrence with Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 -4- exaggerated versions.

The Hon’ble Court put a word of caution and requested the members of Bar to maintain its noble tradition and to treat complaint under Section 498A IPC as a basic human problem and to help the parties to arrive at an amicable solution of that human problem.

In paras 30 and 35 of the judgment, it has been held as quoted below:- “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.

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 interest 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 change 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 Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.M-22775 of 2012 -5- 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 present case are examined in the background of principles set out in Preeti Gupta’s case (supra).the Court is of the considered opinion that it would be unfair to compel the petitioners to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial.

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse and misuse of the process of law.

In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioneRs.In the result, the petition is allowed.

FIR No.488 dated 10.10.2011 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-55, Faridabad and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua the petitioneRs.(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE September 11, 2013 PARAMJIT Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.09.19 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh