Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CRL REVISION NO.1832 of 2001
Date of Decision: March 05, 2009
Pawan Kumar ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioner-Pawan Kumar was convicted for an offence
under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as `IPC’) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala vide
judgment dated 2.11.1999. Vide order of even date, petitioner was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.
500/- under Section 406 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A IPC . Aggrieved by the
same, petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge Barnala, vide order dated 28.11.2001. His co-
accused Kamlesh Rani who was also convicted and sentenced under Section
406/498-A IPC by the trial Court was released on probation by the
Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate
Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 2
Court in paras 2, 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under:-
” The facts, in brief, are that Anita Rani on 25.8.1997 moved an
application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, District
Barnala, on the allegations that she was married to Pawan Kumar
on 3.10.89 according to Anand Karaj ceremony at Barnala. After
the Anand Karaj ceremony, Naranjan Singh, father of the
complainant gave one Soft set, one double bed, two mattresses of
dunlop, one almirah of godrej and 11 beddings to Pawan Kumar
being Istridhan of the complainant on the condition that on
demand by her (complainant) those articles would be returned to
her by him. At that time one set of gold, 21 suits stitched and
unstitched, 4 sheets of double bed, 4 pillos, 51 utensils of steel
were handed over to Kamlesh Rani, accused-appellant, on the
condition that the same was the Istridhan of the complainant and
she would return the same on her demand. It was further stated
that all these articles were taken into possession by the accused in
the presence of Naranjan Singh son of Dewa Singh, Hukum Singh
son of Dewa Singh, Sukhdarshan Singh son of Kartar Singh and
Bharat Bhushan son of Kundan Lal. The accused assured the
complainant and her father that they would return the aforesaid
articles of Istridhan to the complainant on her demand. After the
completion of ceremony of marriage, all these articles were taken
away by the accused to village Handaiya. The complainant also
went along with them.
3.About 2-3 months after the marriage the accused started
maltreating the complainant and asked her to bring scooter,
Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 3Rs.50,000/- in cash to construct a shop/house and Rs.5000/- in
cash to purchase a refrigerator. The complainant told the accused
that since her father had already spent money more than his
capacity in her marriage, he was incapable to fulfill their demand.
4.In February, 1990, father of the complainant gave Rs.5000/- to
the accused for the purchase of refrigerator. Thereafter, for some
time behaviour of the accused remained good towards the
complainant. In the year 1996, they again raised the demand of
Rs.50,000/- in cash to construct a shop, a house and to purchase a
scooter. When the complainant failed to fulfil the said demand of
the accused, she was beaten. In June, 1997, the complainant was
beaten and turned out of her bridal house while all the articles
aforesaid were retained by the accused, though the same
constituted her Istridhan. On July 24,1997, the complainant
convened a panchayat consisting of her father Naranjan Singh,
Hukam Singh, Bharat Bhushan son of Kundan Lal, Siri Pal son of
Ram Lal, Inderpal son of Balwant Singh and Sukhdarshan Singh
son of Kartar Singh and the Panchayat visited the house of the
accused at village Handaiya and a request was made to rehbilitate
the complainant but they refused to do so. At that time, they
again raised the demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash and a scooter. The
complainant asked the accused to return her Istridhan but they
refused to do so. It was further stated that the accused dishonestly
misappropriated the Istridhan aforesaid of the complainant and
also subjected her to cruelty to coerce her to meet their illegal
demand. On the basis of the application aforesaid moved by the
Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 4complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Police
District Barnala formal FIR was recorded. The investigation was
conducted by Ajit Singh, ASI and the statements of the witnesses
were recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of
the investigation they were challaned u/ss 406 and 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code.”
Vide order dated 1.12. 2008 passed by this Court, Sh.Jagjit
Singh Gill Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. On the last date,
nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today, again nobody has
appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
I have gone through the records of the case with the able
assistance of the learned State counsel.
Complainant Anita Rani filed an application before Senior
Superintendent of Police Barnala on 25.8.1997 stating that she was married
to Pawan Kumar on 3.10.1989. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of
marriage. However, after 2-3 months of marriage, petitioners-Pawan Kumar
and Kamlesh Rani (mother-in-law) started harassing her and asked her to
bring Rs.50,000/- in cash and a scooter. Husband and mother-in-law had
misappropriated the Istridhan articles. Admittedly, petitioner-Pawan Kumar
was married to the complainant-Anita Rani. Petitioner-Pawan Kumar had
filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was got dismissed
as withdrawn as he was unable to pay arrears of maintenance and litigation
expenses vide order dated 3.2.1998, Exhibit D2. The divorce petition is
Exhibit D3 wherein the factum of marriage of Pawan Kumar with Anita
Rani and birth of two children are stated by the petitioner. Complainant,
Criminal Revision No. 1832 of 2001 5
while appearing in the witness box as PW1, has deposed as per the contents
of the FIR. She has deposed with regard to entrustment of Istridhan articles
to the petitioner and his co-accused. However, the said articles on demand
were not returned to the complainant and were misappropriated by the
petitioner and his co-accused. The testimony of the complainant is duly
corroborated by Sukhdarshan Singh (PW2) and Naranjan Singh (PW3). In
these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that
the petitioners had misappropriated the Istridhan articles and had treated the
complainant with cruelty. In para 4 of the divorce petition, petitioner has
levelled allegations against the complainant that she was having illicit
relations with various persons. These allegations also amount to cruelty at
the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner examined DW3 Malkiat Singh,
MLA who deposed with regard to a compromise effected between the
parties, Mark `A’. A perusal of Mark `A’ reveals that it is signed by the
petitioner. The said compromise was effected on 25.7.1997. The petitioner
had assured as per the said compromise that he would not continue his
illegal relations with a lady henceforth and would look after his children.
This also leads to inference that the petitioner had been treating his wife
with cruelty due to his relationship with the other lady. In these
circumstances, the Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the
petitioner under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.
The impugned judgments of the Courts below call for no
interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(Sabina)
Judge
March 05, 2009
arya