Shanti Devi Vs. State of Haryana - 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.n.k. agrawal, j. 1. this is a petition under section 482, criminal procedure code, for quashing the proceedings arising out of the fir no. 71, dated february 8, 1989 registered at p.s. ambala city. these proceedings are pending in the court of judicial magistrate 1st class, ambala city, under sections 406, 498-a, 504, 506 and 120-b, i.p.c. all the petitioners accused persons are residents of hoshiarpur and are facing the criminal case at ambala.2. the criminal case arose from a complaint of meena kumari (respondent no. 2) alleging illegal demand of refrigerator, television, washing machine, fan etc. as the articles of dowry from her parents at the time of her marriage on july 28, 1987. she alleged that her parents met all the demands raised by the accused persons. besides the aforementioned articles, gold and silver jewellery and cash were also given. the accused persons named in the complaint are the husband, narinder kumar jain, his mother smt. shanti devi, his brother vipin kumar jain and brother's wife mohini. it was also alleged in the complaint that the accused persons made the demand of more dowry after marriage and started humiliating her. a sum of rs. 50,000/- was demanded for starting a new business by her husband. she was not taken to his house by her husband as the sum of rs. 50,000/- was not paid by her father. she, however, after some time went to her husband's house but the accused persons started harassing, humiliating and beating her for not bringing money and other articles from her parents. she was turned out of the house in july, 1988. the articles given to her at the time of her marriage were sold by them. they came to her father's house on november 20, 1988 at ambala city and gave abuses to her and her mother. they again demanded rs. 50,000/-.3. learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the allegations in the complaint are very vague. the date and time in respect of the demand of more dowry have not been mentioned. no specific allegation is made as to which article was given to which accused and when the demand for its return was made. it is also not stated as to when the articles were sold away by the accused persons. the learned counsel has contended that the complaint is based on false and frivolous allegations. the entire family has been falsely implicated. 4. mr. pramod goel, learned deputy advocate general, haryana, has, on the other hand, contended that the matter is still before the learned magistrate and evidence has yet not been examined. therefore, no conclusion can be drawn at this stage.5. on a consideration of the matter, it appears that the allegations made against the husband may have prima facie some substance but that too depends upon the evidence which may ultimately be produced by the complainant. the allegations made against mother, brother and sister-in-law of the husband appear to be totally vague. it is not clear from the complaint, which is the basis for prosecution, as to when the mother, the brother and the brother's wife of narinder kumar jain demanded articles or money or mis-appropriated the articles given to the bride or the bridegroom at the time of marriage. if certain dowry articles were given to the complainant or her husband, she may perhaps demand those articles back from her husband. there is nothing to show prima facie that those articles have been dishonestly kept by other members of the family or that they have declined to return those articles on demand by the complainant. in these circumstances, the criminal case appears prima facie to be baseless, false and frivolous as against shanti devi, vipin kumar jain and mohini.6. in the result, the petition is partly allowed with the order that the criminal case pending against shanti devi, vipin kumar jain and mohini stands set aside. the case shall, however, proceed against narinder kumar jain, the husband of the complainant in accordance with law. since the case against the aforementioned three persons goes, the offences under section 120-b, i.p.c. also does not sustain against narinder kumar jain.