Dharampal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - it has come in the first information report thatmarriage took place on 13.12.1991 at ludhiana and respondent-wife was subjectedto both physical as well as mental cruelty so as to force her to bring more dowry.v.k. jhanji, j.1. this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed forquashing of f.i.r. no. 100 dated 23.7.1993 registered at p.s. division no. 5, civillines, ludhiana, under sections 406/498a, ipc, and all proceedings arisingtherefrom.2. first information report no. 100 dated 23.7.1993 under sections 406/498a, i.p.c., p.s. civil lines, ludhiana was registered on the basis of a complaint filedby gurdeep kaur wife of dharam pal singh, wherein it was alleged that she wasmarried to dharam pal singh, on 13.12.1991 at sita nagar, ludhiana, and at thetime of marriage, her parents gave dowry as mentioned in annexure-'a' attachedto the said complaint, on the demand of accused persons in the presence ofwitnesses. it has further been averred in the first information report that dowryarticles were entrusted to the accused persons of their undertaking that the sameshall be handed over to her for her use. the list of dowry articles was read overand entrusted to the accused in the presence of the witnesses. on a demand madefor rs. 50,000/-, she told her husband that her parents cannot afford to give suchan huge amount as they had already spent approximately rs. two lacs in hermarriage, besides further giving a sum of rs. 20,000/- at the time of opening ofprinting-press. the other particulars of harassment have also been given in thefirst information report. as regards jurisdiction, it has been stated therein thatarticles of dowry were entrusted to the accused persons in h. no. 517/14, mohallasita nagar, bharat nagar chowk, ludhiana. quashing of the first informationreport has been sought on the ground that perusal of the same shows that nooffence under sections 406/498a, i.p.c. is made out against the petitioners and'there is no specific allegation about entrustment of specific articles of dowryto any particular accused'. the petitioners have never treated the respondentwith cruelty and never maltreated nor forced her to bring more articles of dowry.in support of his arguments, counsel cited judgments of this court in chand raniand ors. v. sunita rani, 1989(1) rcr-1, and surjit singh v. jaswant kaur,[1990(2) all india hindu law reporter 213 (pb.&hry.;)], wherein complaint wasquashed as there was no allegation in the complaint about entrustment of anydowry articles to the accused by the parents and relatives.3. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view thatthere is no merit in the petition. it has come in the first information report thatmarriage took place on 13.12.1991 at ludhiana and respondent-wife was subjectedto both physical as well as mental cruelty so as to force her to bring more dowry.the list of articles given at the time of marriage has been attached with thecomplaint, on the basis of which first information report was registered, whereinit has specifically been averred that articles which were entrusted to the petitioners,were never returned to respondent-wife on demand. in a large number of cases,it has been held by the supreme court that for the purpose of exercising its powers under section 482 cr.p.c. to quash an f.i.r. the high court will have to proceedentirely on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or the documentsaccompanying the same. in the present case, clear allegations of entrustment andmisappropriation of the articles of dowry, have been made by the wife and,therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that criminal breach of trustis not proved against the petitioners. therefore, under these circumstances, thiscourt would not be justified in quashing the first information report at this stage.the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners are of no help to him beingclearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. any observation given - ,herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.4. consequently, this petition shall stand dismissed.