Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE K.S. Kumaran
Ramesh Khullar & Anr. Vs. Alka @ Dimple On 21 March 1997
Law Point:
Section 406 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Misappropriation of Dowry Articles : Complaint Absurd : Quashed — Complaint against husband, his sister and brother-in-law after three years of marriage — To say that dowry articles are still with petitioners — Something absurd — When petitioner has gone out of State — Complaint quashed.
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioners (1) Ramesh Khuller son of Kundan Lal and (2) Meena daughter of Ram Lubhaya Tangri have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint dated 27.1.1995 (Annexure P1) and the summoning order dated 13.12.1995 (Annexure P2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.
2. The respondent Alka @ Dimple wife of Anil Kumar Tangri filed the complaint (Annexure PI) before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, against (1) her husband Anil Kumar Tangri (2) father-in-law Ram Lubhaya Tangri (3) mother-in-law Savitri Devi (4) Husband’s sister Meena and (5) Ramesh Khullar, the brother-in-law of Savitri Devi, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The complaint reads as follows :
The complainant was married to Anil Kumar Tangri on 27, 3.1991 at Tapa Mandi. The accused are residing in cine house at Mullanpur-Dhaka and first-petitioner-Ramesh Khullar has full control aver the family of the accused.
4. At the time of the marriage, the complainant being newly married and was unable to carry the dowry articles, they were entrusted to the accused (as detailed in the complaint) with the understanding that they are her Stridhan and should be handed over in her reaching her matrimonial home : On reaching the matrimonial home the accused started saying that the dowry articles were not given according to their status and that they expected scooter, coloured television and other articles, When the complainant told them that her parents had spent huge amount for her marriage bayond their means, the accused became cruel towards her.
5. After staying at Mullanpur Dhaka for two months the accused- Anil Kumar Tangri took her to Aithalwani and used to compel the complainant to ask her parents to pay Rs. 50,000/- as he wanted to purchase a truck, On the complainant telling him that her parents m not going to pay this amount he gave her beatings, He brought her to Ludhiana where she lived for one month and then her parents took her to Muilanpur; The father of the complainant said that he will try to arrange for the amount mi then, Anil Kumar Tangri took her to Calcutta where they stayed for 10 days; but after giving beatings to the complainant she was sent back to Ludhiana; When the father of the complainant took a panchayat and met her father in-law and mother in-law, the accused said that Anil Kumar has slipped away, But, on the request of the panchayat, they agreed to keep the complainant in their house, The complainant lived in the house of her parents-in-law for one and half years, during which time she was forced to work like a maid servant and on certain occasions she was not given food. Then she was turned out from her matrimonial home.
6. When the complainant came to know that her husband had come, the father of the complainant took a Panchayat, and at the request of the Panchayat he agreed to keep the complainant in his house, In April, 1993 she started living with the accused but once again he slipped on 5.7.1993 leaving behind the complainant, On 20.10.1993 she was taken to Calcutta but in December, 1991 she was sent back to Mullanpur; She was again turned out of the house on 13.1.1994 and lived with her parents from 20.1.1994. The complainant gave birth to a daughter on 4..8.1994 and the accused said that an additional responsibility has come upon them and/ therefore, parents of the complainant should give Rs. 80,000/- and on refusal by the complainant the accused maltreated her.
7. On 12.12.1994 the marriage of accused Meena was solemnised and the accused gave the golden jewellery, which was en trusted with them to Meena, When the complainant objected she was mercilessly beaten and was turned out of the house in the last week of December, 1994 On 13.1.1995 the father of the complainant took a panchayat and requested the accused not to be so cruel but die accused said that until and unless Rs. 50,000/- is given they are not going to rehabilitate the complainant in their house. The complainant then requested to return her Stridhan, which was lying with them, but they refused to return, The accused have treated the complainant with cruelty in order to extract more dowry, and mis-appropriated the articles entrusted to them.
8. The learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, ludhiana, after taking into consideration the complaint and me evidence game to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against me accused under Sections 406 and 498 of me Indian Penal Code and accordingly summoned them to appear before him by his order dated 13.2.1995. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court under lection 462 of the Code of criminal Procedure to quash the complaint and me summoning order. According to the first-petitioner, he (Ramesh Mhullar) is not related to the husband of the respondent but was only a mediator (Bachola) at the time of the solemnization of me marriage : The petitioners also urge that the second-petitioner who is sister-in-law of the respondent is staying at Sunder Kalan after her marriage. The petitioners claim that after the marriage, which took place & Tapa Mandi (district Sangrur), the respondent and her husband started living at Althawani in Bengal state and, therefore, the petitioners had no connection with the respondent and had not interfered in the matrimonial life of the respondent. According to the petitioners the complaint is vague against them and no offence is made out against them. The petitioners claim that since the marriage was performed at Tapa Mandi, District Sangrur and since it is stated that the dowry articles were entrusted at Tapa Mandi (according to the complaint) the Courts at Ludhiana have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such the summoning order is without jurisdiction. According to the petitioners, it is incredible that in spite of the fact that the respondent had lived with her husband in the State of Bengal for more than three years, she had not got hack the dowry articles : If she has any grievance the same must be against her husband with whom she has stayed for about three years, hut the respondent has tried to implicate the close relations of husband since her married life has been disrupted. According to the petitioners, the allegations about entrustment of dowry are vague. The dowry articles are entrusted to the bridegroom or his parents and the sister has hardly any role to play. It is neither the custom nor the practice to give the types of gifts to the husband, brothers or Bachela, as alleged. No offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Cede is made out since general and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. According to the petitioners both of them are living in different places from the matrimonial home of the respondent. No time and place of alleged cruelty has been given.
9. The respondent-complainant filed reply urging as follows;
The petitioners should have approached the Trial Court and therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Summoning order was issued on 13.12.1995 and the petitioners are not appearing in spite of bailable warrants issued to them but nave moved this Court for quashing the complaint. Second-petitioner is not staying at Sunder Ralan in District Jalandhar. She is at present staying at Jandiala. The marriage between the complainant and Anil Kumar took place on 27.3.1991 at Tapa Mandi, District Sangrur. After the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent and her husband lived at Mullanpur Dhaka for two months along with the petitioners. It is not true that immediately after the marriage the respondent and her husband started living at Aithalwani in the State of Bengal or that the petitioners had no connection with her, and had not interfered in her matrimonial life. During their stay at Mullanpur Dhaka, District Ludhiana, the respondent was maltreated by the accused on different occasions demanding dowry.
10. The respondent was treated cruelly by the petitioners and the other accused at different places including Ludhiana on different occasions demanding dowry. The respondent was brought to Ludhiana and was compelled to bring more dowry from her parents, living at Ludhiana. These are all parts of the same transaction. Some ceremonies like shagun and other gifts meant for the respondent were handed over to the accused at Ludhiana. The dowry articles are required to be returned at the place of her residence. The demand of dowry was also made at Ludhiana and hence the Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction. The dowry articles are still with the accused and have not been returned back to the respondent. The allegations regarding entrustment of dowry are not vague. Thus respondent zsuffered mental as well as physical cruelty at the hands of the petitioners.
11. After the marriage of the respondent during the stay at Mullanpur Dhaka (District Ludhiana) all the accused treated the respondent cruelly. It is not true that this respondent used the dowry articles during her stay with her husband in the State of Bengal.
12. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
13. I will first deal with the case under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. In the complaint (Annexure PI) there are specific allegations of entrustment of certain articles with the petitioners, which are as follows :
“Meena 21 suits and saries, one attachi case;
Ramesh 101 Utensils, Dinner set,
Khullar Clock.”
Therefore, it cannot be stated that the allegations regarding entrustment are vague and general. But the contention of the petitioners is that first petitioner – Ramesh Khullar was only a mediator at the time of marriage and the second petitioner-Meena is the sister of the complainant’s husband, who has also been married and lives away from the matrimonial home of the complainant and her husband, and that in the presence of the parents, it is improbable that dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Swaran Singh & Ors. v. Jagdish Kaur, 1991 (3) RCR 83, in support of his contention that in the presence of parents the sister and brother-in-law of husband are not supposed to accept dowry articles at the time of marriage. But, I am of the view that at this stage, it is not proper to consider and hold as to whether such a custom exists or not. Therefore, I am of the view that on this ground this Court should not in the exercise of its powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code quash the proceedings under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.
14. But the vital contention put forth by the petitioners is this. The marriage between the complainant and Anil Kumar Tangri took place on 27.3.1991 and even according to the complainant she lived at Mullanpur Dhaka and then at Aithalwani (West Bengal) then again at Ludhiana, Mullanpur-Dhaka etc. There were panchayats also, and the last of the panchayat is said to have taken place on 13.1.1995 and to have failed. It is thereafter the complainant is alleged to have requested the accused to return the Stridhan articles, which tine accused are alleged td have refused. The learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly contends that when the complainant had lived during a period of three years at the matrimonial home at Mullanpur-Dhaka, Aithalwani in West Bengal State and other places/it is improbable that the dowry articles would have been still left with the petitioners. As pointed out already Ramesh Khullar is not a close relation of the complainant and Meena the second-petitioner, even according to the complainant, was married on 12.12.1994. About three years had elapsed from the date of marriage of the complainant. Therefore, to say that the dowry articles are still with the petitioners is something absurd. It is incredible that the complainant would have left her dowry articles with the petitioners for more than three years, even though she had gone with her husband and living at Aithalwani in the State of West Bengal. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Harjit Kaur, 1991 (2) RCR 243, wherein it was held that the complainant had lived at her in-laws, house for more than two years and it is incredible that she had not, atany stage, got back the dowry articles which were en trusted to her parents-in-law. Ultimately the proceedings before the Trial Court were quashed with regard to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. In the present case the complainant had even gone out of the State and lived with her husband in West Bengal and it is improbable that after lapse of three years the complainant would have allowed the dowry articles to be retained by the petitioners or to be given to the second petitioner at the time of her marriage. Therefore, on this ground alone the complaint with regard to the petitioners under Section 406, Indian Penal Code will have to be quashed.
15. Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioners also raised the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana to entertain the complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage admittedly took place at Tapa Mandi, District Sangrur, that the alleged entrustment took place at the time of the marriage, and therefore, the Court at Ludhiana, where the complaint has been launched has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. But the contention of the respondent-complainant is that the articles of dowry which were entrusted to the petitioners were expected/required to be returned to the complainant at her place of residence, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana and, therefore, the Court at Ludhiana, has jurisdiction. But in view of my finding in the preceding paragraph, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the question of the jurisdiction.
16. So far as the case under Section 498-B, Indian Penal Code is concerned, the allegations in the complaint extracted above will clearly show that all the allegations of maltreatment and cruelty are vague, general with regard to the petitioners. Except the allegation against first-petitioner-Ramesh Khullar that he has full control over the family of the accused, there is no allegation of cruelty specifically attributed to him. Whatever allegations could be pointed out by the respondent against the petitioners, they are all general and vague. Therefore, I find that there are no grounds for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the complaint with regard to the offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code has also to be quashed.
17. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned complaint, the summoning order and the consequential proceedings as against the petitioners are 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