Court: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Bakhshish Kaur
Maya Vs. Sudesh
Law Point:
Sections 498-A, 406 — It is not clear as to when petitioners taunted complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry and gifts — They are living separately and not in same house with complainant — Difficult to make out case of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles — Impugned complaint quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint dated January 11, 1999 filed under Sections 498-A/406, I.P.C., Annexure PI and the order dated July 7, 1989, Annexure P2.
2. Smt. Sudesh respondent was married to Mahipal Singh son of Kora Ram Kumhar on April 9, 1993 according to Hindu rites. Sufficient dowry including gold and silver ornaments were given at the time of dowry. The in-laws of Smt. Sudesh were not happy with the dowry and the Stridhan given in marriage. Therefore, her husband alongwith the members of his family started harassing Sudesh on one pretext or the other. In the beginning, she was asked to bring colour T.V. set or cash of Rs. 20,000/-. The parents of Sudesh-respondent expressed their inability to fulfil their demand. Thus, she was treated with cruelty, Mahipal also stated coming late at home in a drunken condition and under the influence of liquor, he gave Sudesh severe beatings. It became a daily routine with her. The complainant was not given proper food and clothing. Her child had died after four months of the delivery in her parents house, but nobody came to meet her or the new born child. The complainant was sent to the matrimonial home on the assurance given by four or five persons including sisters of her husband Mahipal. She gave birth to another child at the matrimonial home, but she was not provided with proper food. The entire jewellery and Stridhan was snatched by the accused Mahipal and other accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint, whereas the other accused namely Smt. Birmati, Maya and Smt. Nirmala, now petitioners used to taunt her, as their houses are adjacent to that of the petitioner. On these allegations, Sudesh complainant, now respondent, filed a complaint under Sections 406/498-A, I.P.C.
3. The learned Magistrate vide the impugned order Annexure P2, have summoned the accused No. 1 to 3 i.e. Mahipal, Kora Ram and Smt. Nanki for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406, I.P.C.
4. Hence the Criminal Revision.
5. I have heard Mr. S.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Akshay Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
6. Mr. S.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the allegations contained in the complaint are vague, cryptic and not sufficient to warrant conviction of the petitioners. In fact, all the family members have been involved. The petitioners namely Maya, Birmati and Nirmala are the wives of the brothers of Mahipal, husband of the complainant-Sudesh. The present complaint had been filed against the petitioners simply to humiliate and harass them. A vague allegation has been made in the complaint that the petitioners who are residing in the neighbourhood of complainant, used to taunt her. The alleged offence of cruelty or the allegations of taunting the complainant, as complained of by her, are not at all made out from the complaint as no date, time or place and the manner she was allegedly taunted or treated with cruelty by the petitioners, has been given. Therefore, the impugned complaint and the order summoning them are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners.
7. Mr. Akshay Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent Contended that the complainant is not required to give in detail the time, place or date or hour the respondent was treated with cruelty. All these facts are to be looked into at the time of producing evidence. In other words, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, which is simply a summoning order, the petitioners may raise the objections or these can be placed before the Trial Court at the relevant time i.e. at the stage of framing charge.
8. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent might have carried some weight in case the specific part or role is reflected or made out from the allegations contained in the complaint. In fact, the careful reading of the complaint Annexure P1, especially relating to the present petitioners would go a long way to show that there is simply a passing reference to the petitioners as contained in para 11 of the complaint which reads as under :
“Her entire jewellery and Stridhan was snatched, details of which have been given in the schedule attached herewith, by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the help of respondent No. 1 whereas remaining respondent Nos. 4 and 6 whose houses are adjacent to the house of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 used to taunt the petitioner for not bringing sufficient dowry and used to complain for not bringing some clothes, gifts for which they are entitled to. Moreover, when the petitioner was made outstanding from the house for not bringing dowry, they used to laugh and not helped the petitioner, rather used to give taunt.”
9. The complainant has nowhere stated as to what were the specific words uttered by the petitioners, which could be said to be hurting, it is also not clear as to on which date and time the petitioners had been taunting the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry and the gifts. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are married. They are living separately. They are not living in the same house where the complainant had been residing. Thus, it is difficult to make out a case of cruelty or misappropriation of the do wry articles so as to attract the provisions of Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, so far it relates to the petitioners.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accepted and the impugned complaint Annexure P1 and the order Annexure P2, summoning the petitioners namely Smt. Maya, Smt. Birmati and Smt. Nirmala are hereby quashed.
Petition allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment