IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-11705 of 2013 (O&M) Baljit Singh and another ...Petitioners VERSUS Karamjit Kaur ...Respondent (ii) CRM No.M-15382 of 2013 (O&M) Balwinder Kaur @ Davinder Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Karamjit Kaur ...Respondent Date of Decision: October 10, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This judgment shall dispose of two connected criminal misc. petitions arising out of the same criminal complaint No.448 dated 16.08.2011 and summoning order dated 09.07.2012.
The first revision petition has been filed by petitioners Baljit Singh and Harjinder Kaur under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal complaint No.448 dated 16.08.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC and summoning order dated 09.07.2012 VINEET GULATI 2014.10.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-11705 of 2013 and connected case -2- vide which the present petitioners have been summoned.
The second revision petition has been filed by petitioner Balwinder Kaur @ Davinder Kaur seeking same relief as sought in the first revision petition.
Petitioner Baljit Singh is elder brother-in-law (jeth) and petitioner Harjinder Kaur is sister-in-law (jethani) of respondent- complainant, whereas petitioner Balwinder Kaur @ Davinder Kaur is the Aunt (sister of father-in-law) of the complainant.
Notice of motion was issued in this case and respondent appeared through her counsel and contested both the petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
A copy of the complaint has been placed on the record. Complainant Karamjit Kaur has filed the complaint against her husband Inderjit Singh, Balvir Singh and Harbhajan Kaur (parents-in- law) and present petitioners Baljit Singh, Harjinder Kaur (jeth and jethani) and Balwinder Kaur (sister of father-in-law of complainant). As per the complainant’s version, she was married with accused Inderjit Singh on 01.10.2000 and huge amount was spent at the time of marriage. All types of dowry articles were given. The perusal of the complaint shows that some specific articles are mentioned to be entrusted to each of the accused. From the perusal of the complaint, it looks improbable that dowry articles are entrusted like this. As per the complaint, one gold ring, washing machine, one Peera set, one cooler, two gents suit and cash of `1100/- are stated to have been2014.10.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-11705 of 2013 and connected case -3- entrusted to accused No.4 Baljit Singh. Similarly, to accused No.5 Harjinder Kaur, one pair of gold ear rings, one pair of anklets, two ladies suits, Almirah and cash of `1100/- have been entrusted and to accused No.6 Balwinder Kaur one pair of ear rings, one sofa set, juicer, mixture, one dinner set, microwave oven and cash of `1100/- have been entrusted. It prima facie looks improbable and has been stated so, only to implicate the petitioners in this case. The dowry articles are not distributed like this that Sofa set is entrusted to some one else, Almirah to some one else etc. So, this version, on the face of it, looks doubtful. The perusal of the complaint further shows that no specific allegation regarding cruelty or harassment to the complainant by the present petitioners has been mentioned. These petitioners are not supposed to be in possession of the dowry articles after about 10 years of marriage i.e. when the present complaint has been filed. It is now held in so many cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A, which were made for the benefit of wife, are now being misused by the estranged wife after some matrimonial dispute arose between her and her husband to rope in as many family members of the husband as possible. Petitioner Balwinder Kaur, is sister of father- in-law of the complainant. In no way, she can be held either beneficiary for demand of dowry or to misappropriate the dowry articles nor dowry articles are supposed to be in her possession. Only general and vague allegations are levelled against her. Similarly, as regarding Baljit Singh and Harjinder Kaur, who are jeth and jethani of VINEET GULATI 2014.10.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-11705 of 2013 and connected case -4- the complainant, they are also not supposed to be in possession of the dowry articles nor they can be held as beneficiary nor there are any particulars in the complaint giving specific instances of cruelty committed by them etc. Therefore, the present complaint qua the present petitioners, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited judgment passed by this Court in Anita and others vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 313, in which it is held that FIR under Section 498-A and 406 lodged by wife against the entire members of family of husband, FIR against four unmarried sisters and brother quashed. It is also held that it is not believable that unmarried sisters or unmarried brother of the husband would be entrusted with any article of dowry separately. There is a tendency to involve all the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband and the wife become strained. On the same point, learned counsel for the petitioner also cited judgment passed passed by this Court in Anisha Bhandari vs. State of Haryana, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429. I have gone through both the above-cited judgments and the same fully apply in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further cited judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 940, in which it is held that wife implicating all the family members including second wife of husband, proceedings quashed. I have gone through this above-cited judgment and the same fully applies in the present case. VINEET GULATI 2014.10.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-11705 of 2013 and connected case -5-
In view of the above, the criminal complaint No.448 dated 16.08.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506and 120-B IPC and summoning order dated 09.07.2012 qua the petitioners are quashed.
Therefore, finding merit, both the revisions petitions stand allowed.
October 10, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2014.10.17 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh