CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.25981 OF 2005 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
Girish Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Sunita Rani @ Deepika
....Respondents
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: Mr. G. S. Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudershan Thakur, Advocate for
Mr. Navdeep Sukna, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners seek quashing of complaint under
Sections 406, 498A IPC dated 14.10.2003, Annexure P-3 and the
summoning order dated 1.3.2004, Annexure P-4.
Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant.
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4
is maternal uncle of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.5 and 7 are his
sisters whereas petitioner Nos.6 and 8 are the husbands of petitioner
Nos.5 and 7 respectively.
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.25981 OF 2005 :{ 2 }:
The marriage between the parties was performed on
22.4.2002 at Sri Ganganagar. The marriage is stated to be a simple
affair and no dowry articles were given or demanded. It is averred
that right from the beginning, the respondent-wife never treated the
husband with love and affection and also did not show any affection
towards the parents and family members of the husband (petitioner
No.1) and continued to behave in an indifferent manner. It is also
stated that father of the respondent and his maternal uncle, who
were residing at Sri Ganganagar, always told petitioner No.1 to get
separated from her in-law and, thus, they interfered in matrimonial
life of petitioner No.1 and his wife in an unjustified and unwarranted
manner. It is alleged that on 29.9.2003, the father of the respondent
took his daughter in the absence of parents of petitioner No.1. Some
items like saris etc. and money were also taken along. Petitioner
No.1 attempted to contact the aforesaid persons but did not receive
any response and accordingly was compelled to file FIR No.448
dated 1.10.2002, under Sections 379, 380 IPC. The respondent had
then made a complaint to S.S.P., Mukatsar on 9.10.2002. As per the
petitioners, this complaint was enquired into by D.S.P., Malout, who
submitted his report on 9.1.2004. He found that the allegations made
against the petitioners were not substantiated. This was held after
due enquiry. Respondent No.2 thereafter filed a written complaint
against the petitioners under Sections 406, 498A IPC on 14.10.2003.
She also filed an application 125 Cr.P.C. On the basis of this
complaint, the petitioners were summoned on 1.3.2004 and order in
this regard is Annexure P-4. The petitioners have now filed this
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.25981 OF 2005 :{ 3 }:
petition for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order.
Reference is also made to some other litigation filed between the
parties in the petition, including to an application under Section 9
filed by the petitioner-husband for restitution of conjugal rights and to
a divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on
11.9.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that divorce has
already been granted. The quashing of the complaint and the
summoning order is sought on the ground that it is an abuse of the
process of the Court and counter blast to the FIR lodged by the
petitioners. Prayer further is that the complaint does not contain any
allegation against respondent Nos.4 to 8 and as such, the complaint
and the subsequent proceedings in progress against these
petitioners atleast deserved to be quashed.
On notice being issued, written statement on behalf of the
respondent has been filed. In preliminary objections, the respondent
has averred that complaint and the summoning order can be
quashed only if the complaint does not disclose commission of any
offence. Basically, the averments made in the petition are denied. It
is stated that the petitioners would be responsible for various acts
committed by them. Reference in the reply is made to the fact that
the parents of petitioner No.1 had demanded cash and other articles.
The averments made in the petition that the respondent had not
treated the petitioner with love and affection is denied. It is, however,
conceded that the complaint was lodged with the police, which was
investigated and no action was taken thereon. As per the
respondent, it is thereafter that the present complaint was filed.
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.25981 OF 2005 :{ 4 }:
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the assistance of the counsel, I have perused the
complaint and the summoning order. Counsel for the respondent
could not point out any specific averment in the complaint, which
would reveal role played by respondent Nos.5 to 8. Even otherwise,
counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the fact that
petitioner Nos.5 to 7 are sisters of petitioner No.1 and had been
married long before the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the
respondent. Petitioner Nos.6 and 8 are the husbands of petitioner
Nos.5 and 7 respectively and as such, normally would not have any
role to play in the matrimonial life of petitioner No.1 and respondent-
wife. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any
averment in the complaint, which would indicate any allegation
against these petitioners.
Petitioner No.4 is maternal uncle of petitioner No.1. The
allegation made against him is that he had come to the residence of
the parents of the complainant alongwith her husband and father-in-
law and he demanded cash amount. It is further averred that
thereafter the father of the complainant had given cash of
Rs.1,25,000/- to these persons in the presence of mediator. Even if
this allegation is taken at its face value, it can not be said that this
money was handed over to petitioner No.4. He being maternal uncle
of petitioner No.1 may have accompanied his nephew, his father i.e.
his brother-in-law, (petitioner No.2) to the residence of the
complainant. As per the custom in the society, it would be reasonable
to infer that maternal uncle would not have received any amount in
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.25981 OF 2005 :{ 5 }:
the manner as has been projected, though he might have
accompanied his relatives. He may have accompanied these persons
but can not be made responsible for demand or acceptance of this
amount, which could lead to any allegation against him for demand of
dowry or acceptance thereof. Considering the relationship, he has
with the complainant, this averment in the complaint against
petitioner No.4 would not reveal culpability for the offences alleged in
the complaint. However, I find that there are specific allegations
against petitioner Nos.1 to 3.
The net result is that no case is made out for quashing
the complaint and proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 to 3. The
proceedings qua respondent Nos.4 to 8, however, appears to be an
abuse of process of the Court as there are virtually no allegations in
the complaint or otherwise against the said petitioners. The
complaint and the summoning order qua petitioner Nos.4 to 8 as
such, can not be sustained and the same are set-aside.
The petition is allowed to this extent. The proceedings
qua petitioner Nos.1 to 3 shall continue.
September 26,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE