CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.1030 OF 2006 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
Bhagat Ram Goel and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Naresh Rani
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: None for the parties.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this case is for quashing of complaint and the
summoning order, summoning the petitioners for offences under
Sections 406, 498A IPC.
Complainant, Naresh Rani, married Rakesh Bansal on
15.4.1990 at Budladha as per Hindu rites. Petitioner No.2 is elder
sister of Rakesh Bansal and petitioner No.1 is her husband.
Petitioner No.4 is second sister of husband of the complainant and
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.1030 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:
petitioner No.3 is her husband. Similarly, petitioner No.6 is sister of
Rakesh Bansal and petitioner No.5 is her husband. Petitioner
Nos.2,4 and 6, sisters-in-law of the complainant, were married on
5.7.1981, 29.5.1982 and 6.7.1991 respectively. Thus, they were
married much prior to the date of marriage of the complainant and
her husband, Rakesh Bansal. The marriage between the
complainant and Rakesh Bansal got into trouble and ultimately
complainant-respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, against her husband and his parents.
On the basis of this complaint, the petitioners and other co-accused
stand summoned. Claiming that the allegations against the
petitioners are false and no specific role is attributed to them, they
have filed the present petition, seeking quashing of the complaint as
well as the summoning order.
The submission in the petition is that the petitioners are
married prior to the date of the marriage of the complainant and
accordingly were living separately and as such, would have no
concern with the matrimonial affairs of the complainant and her
husband. According to the petitioners, the real cause of trouble is
that husband of the complainant joined hands with brother of the
complainant to run a partnership business at Ludhiana. This
business concern suffered heavy losses and had to be closed down.
The husband of the complainant asked for accounts and this led to
dispute and differences between the couple and in order to put
pressure on her husband to save her parental family, the
complainant has filed this false case.
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.1030 OF 2006 :{ 3 }:
The complaint filed is annexed with the petition as
Annexure P-1. Specific allegations may have been made against the
accused persons in the complaint i.e. the husband and father-in-law
of the complainant. Allegation against the petitioners is that they also
used to say that they were not given rings or woolen suits and, thus,
participated in raising demand of dowry. The complainant has also
made reference to the business started at Ludhiana and the same
has been closed on account of losses. She, however, claims that her
husband started torturing her on this count and said that her parents
had not given him anything at the time of marriage. It is then alleged
that all the accused together and in deliberation with each other,
asked complainant to bring a sum of Rs.10 lacs from her parents in
order to restart the factory and when her parents could not fulfill this
demand, she was thrown out of the house in three clothes.
Complainant has blamed all the accused, including the petitioners,
that they have forcibly kept the dowry articles i.e. Istri Dhan of the
complainant and, thus, would be responsible for the offence of
criminal breach of trust. It is on the basis of this complaint that the
petitioners have been summoned.
This petition was admitted and ordered to be heard within
one year. At the time of admission, the proceedings were not stayed,
though the petitioners were granted exemption from personal
appearance. No one has come present to appear in this case today.
Fate of the case and the stay of the proceedings as on date is not
known.
I have gone through the pleadings and the submissions
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.1030 OF 2006 :{ 4 }:
made in the petition. The only ground raised in support of the prayer
for quashing is that the petitioners were separately living at the time
of marriage and hence, would not have any concern in raising
demand of dowry in this case. There are allegations made in the
complaint that they had joined hands with other accused in raising
demand of Rs.10 lacs, when husband of the complainant suffered
loss in the factory at Ludhiana. It is not be possible to hold whether
this allegation ultimately would be substantiated on the basis of
evidence given on oath or not. The factual position in regard to the
role played by the petitioners would have to be proved by leading
cogent evidence before the Trial Court. On the basis of affidavit, it
will not be appropriate to hold one way or the other. The petitioners
would get opportunity to raise all the defences that are available to
them. It would be for the Trial Court to see if the complainant
succeed in proving the allegations made in the complaint or whether
the petitioners are able to establish their innocence. This Court can
not assume the role of Trial Court to say that the allegations made
against the petitioners, on the basis of material, would not ultimately
stand proved or not. That will be the role of Trial Court. It has been
so observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 233. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for quashing the
complaint and the summoning order.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed. The
petitioners would, however, be at liberty to raise all the pleas before
the Trial Court, which shall take these into consideration while
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.1030 OF 2006 :{ 5 }:
deciding the case. Any opinion expressed hereinbefore would not
have any effect on the merits of the case.
September 23, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE