JUDGMENT
Jai Singh Sekhon, J.
1. The petitioners through this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seek quashment of the complaint Annexure P. 1 and the order dated 3-10-1989 (Annexure P. 2) whereby the petitioners on the complaint of Mst. Ravi Kanta were summoned by the trial Court to face trial for offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Mst. Ravi Kanta complainant was married with Parshotam Dev, Petitioner No. 3 on 9-5-1971 she was blessed with a son now aged about 15 years and a daughter now aged about 14 years. Both the children are residing with their father. Unfortunately, the family relations became strained and Mst. Ravi Kanta filed an application on 11-4-1984 under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance from her husband. The trial Court awarded Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance vide order dated 24-4-1986. On revision, maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month vide order dated 14-8-1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Both the parties then filed revision petitions before the High Court which were dismissed on 1-11-1988. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, Mst. Ravi Kanta also filed an application on 19-4-1984 for the custody of her children under Guardians and Wards Act. The Court dismissed this application on 8-10-1986. The complainant then filed the present complaint dated 31-5-1989 alleging that some gold and silver ornaments, utensils and clothes which formed the stridhan have been misappropriated by the accused-petitioners. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of her father Buta Ram that she had been turned out and there are no chance of reconciliation. To crown it all, she was kept on sleeping over this matter for full five years. It is not denied that the complainant failed to contend even in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code or in the application before the Guardians and Wards Court for the custody of the children that the present petitioners misappropriated her ornaments and other articles forming her stridhan. Under these circumstances, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pendency of these proceedings would amount to harassment of the petitioners and abuse of the process of the Criminal Court.
3. The apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa’s case (supra) in para 5 of the judgment after elaborate discussion had laid down the following four principles for quashing the order summoning the accused by the Magistrate :–
(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can even reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complainant suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.
A bare glance through the second principle leaves no doubt that if the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed under Section 462 of the Code.
4. The decision of two Judges of the Supreme Court including S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, who was also member of the Bench which decided Smt. Nagawwa’s case (supra), in Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case (supra) cannot be said to be running contrary to the above-referred principles as in para 8 of the judgment, after relying upon its earlier view in Smt. Nagawwa’s case (supra) the above-referred principles were reiterated.
5. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent that the oral evidence of four witnesses should not be brushed aside on the basis of inherent improbabilities because the best yardstick with a judicial forum to appraise the oral evidence of the witnesses is normal conduct of human beings and broad probabilities of the case in view of the well-known dictum that men may lie but the circumstances seldom.
6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no option but to quash the complaint (Annexure P. 1) as well as the summoning order (Annexure P. 2) and other proceedings resulting therefrom by accepting this petition in order to prevent and abuse of the process of the Criminal Court. It is ordered accordingly.
