IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1784 of 2008
Date of Decision: August 07, 2008
Bimla & Another
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
The State of Haryana & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant
Advocate General, Haryana, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed at the
instance of Bimla wife of Satpal @ Pala i.e.
mother-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant, Mamta
Rani, and Geeta wife of Jagat Singh i.e. paternal aunt
of the husband of complainant.
Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners have
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [2]
been implicated for no legal reason. There is no
evidence so as to implicate the petitioners. There is
neither any specific allegation against the petitioners
nor any material so as to show that they had demanded
dowry or had committed the offences as alleged i.e.
under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant has contended that the petitioners have
been specifically named in the FIR and there are
allegations in the FIR that the accused had taken and
accepted dowry and other articles as given by the
family of the complainant as per their status.
I have considered the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties. Striking feature in
the FIR is the repeated averments at the instance of
the complainant to the effect that:-
“….. There the marriage consummation remained
unsatisfactory on the very first night. I stayed there for one
night only at my first visit.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
…. I stayed at village Khanda for seven days and on account
of this non payment I was not properly respected and I found
my husband to be fully unable to consummate the marriage
during my seven days stay there with him at village Khanda.
It created doubt in my mind for husband’s impotency.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
….. My husband had not even been able to enjoy and
consummate marriage satisfactorily with me. His impotency
factor always encroached upon my mind and once on
16.12.2006, I happened to utter it to my husband and to my
mother in law Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Geeta. My spell for
my husband’s impotency annoyed all the accused and they
again beat me more and more and thrown me out of their
house forcibly only in three cloths putted me into a car and
the accused no.1,2 and 3 accused had also set in to the car
which was driven to Narwana and after some time these
accused thrown me out of the car at Narwana minor canal
pool at Jind Narwana road, near Subhash Nagar, Narwana…..
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [3]
"
So far as the allegations of giving and
accepting dowry are concerned, it has been stated in
the FIR that parents and maternal uncle of the
complainant had given sufficient dowry and other
articles according to the status of the family and the
same were handed over to the accused persons on
different ceremonial occasions. All these were taken
and accepted by the accused persons and were taken to
their home which are being held by them and still in
their possession.
The claim made in the FIR is also with
regard to the money spent for engaging vehicles at the
time of marriage, video filming, purchase of sweets &
food etc., for the marriage party, making arrangements
for stay of marriage party in a hotel etc., besides the
articles mentioned in the FIR including cash, gold,
clothing, utensils of Brass, suits etc. However, there
is no averment in the lengthy document (FIR) with
regard to specific entrustment of any article to either
of the petitioners or the demand made for an article
from either of the petitioners.
In the reply filed on behalf of the
respondent-State also, no material has been pointed out
so as to indicate specific involvement of the
petitioners in demand of dowry or entrustment of dowry
articles.
I also find that a complaint was made to
the Magistrate concerned with a prayer to refer the
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [4]
same for registration of FIR under the provisions of
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been mentioned in the
complaint that an application was moved before the
police but no action had been taken. It seems that the
police prima facie before receiving orders from the
Court did not find commission of any offence. Be that
as it may, I am of the opinion that FIR has been lodged
at the instance of the complainant for the reasons that
the marriage could not be consummated on account of
alleged impotency of the husband. The women folk of the
family of the husband have been implicated so as to
harass them. In these circumstances, without there
being any specific allegation against the petitioners
or any material specifically implicating the
petitioners which can be translated into evidence, the
petitioners cannot be asked to stand trial. Continuance
of trial, in view of the given facts and circumstances
of the case would result in abuse of process of Court.
The criminal Court process cannot be allowed to be used
to settle score of the complainant after it has been
found that there is no relevant material showing even
prima facie commission of offences by the petitioners.
Geeta, petitioner No.2, is the paternal
aunt of the husband. For the conduct of the husband, of
the nature as alleged, the lady surely cannot be held
responsible. Even if all the allegations are taken
to be true, no offence is found to have been
committed by the petitioners.
In view of the above, the petition is
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [5]
allowed.
FIR No.78 dated 20.3.2007 lodged under
Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 IPC with
Police Station, City, Narwana and the subsequent
proceedings against the petitioners are hereby
quashed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
August 07, 2008 JUDGE
avin