Court: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Dr. Sarojnei Saksen
Satinder Kumar Vs. Asha Rani On 15 November 1994
Law Point:
Secs. 406, 498-A — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty — Complaint against husband & petitioner-brother-in-law by respondent — Offences u/Secs. 406, 498-A, I.P.C not prima facie disclosed against petitioner, husband’s brother — Maliciously dragged in criminal prosecution with oblique motive to harass him — Dowry articles (stridhan) are delivered to husband & parents-in-laws of bride — Brothers & sisters of bridegroom not usually expected to accept stridhan — Omnipotent allegations in complaint regarding petitioner’s maltreatment for demand of dowry — In such matters brothers & sisters have no involvement — No offence proved against petitioner u/Secs. 406, 498-A, I.P.C — Whether correct ? — (Yes).
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner’s learned Counsel contends that from the complaint as well as from the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. are not prima facie disclosed against the petitioner Satinder Kumar, who is complainant’s husband’s brother. He has been maliciously dragged in this criminal prosecution with an oblique motive to harass him. According to him in Indian Society, dowry articles are delivered to the husband and parents-in-laws of the bride. Brothers and sisters of the bridegroom are not usually expected to accept stridhan. Complainant made general allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. Normally husband’s brother has little say in the marital affairs of his brother and sister-in-law. It is only the parents and the husband who are involved with respect to demand for dowry. Prosecution of brother is always with oblique motive and hence the proceedings against him should be quashed. For this proposition, he has relied on Pardip Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab, 1992 (3) RCR 176 and Parkash Kumar v. Kulwant Kaur, 1992 (1) RCR 348. The petitioner’s Counsel read before me the complainant’s evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also placed before me the document produced by the complainant alongwith the complaint.
2. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioner was also present when the dowry articles were handed over and he too behaved cruelly with the complainant and persisted the nefarious demand of dowry. In the document produced alongwith the complaint, complainant has specifically mentioned what items were handed over to the petitioner. In the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e., husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law gave beating mercilessly to the complainant when she refused to bring the demanded articles in dowry from her parental home. She was not even given food and clothes for many days.
3. The petitioner’s Counsel’s contention is forceful. From the complaint, it is evident that dowry articles (stridhan) were handed over to the husband and the mother-in-law, though in the document annexed with the complaint at Sr. No. 4, certain items are shown to have been entrusted to accused No. 3, but prima facie it is unbelievable that a wrist watch, one Peti, sofa set, central table, double bed, dressing table and stool, two sets of beddings, two pairs of Sandles and Shingar box were entrusted to the brother-in-law who has nothing to do with these items of dowry. Further the evidence of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was read over to me. In that statement, she has not deposed that these items were entrusted to accused No. 3, the petitioner. There is an omnipotent allegation in the complaint as well as in the complainant’s statement that the petitioner also maltreated her and demanded certain items to be brought in dowry. In such matters the brothers and sisters have no involvement. Considering this fact, the Trial Court has not registered offence against accused Nos. 4 and 5 who are sisters of the husband of the complainant. Hence, I find that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this complaint with oblique motive. There is no prima facie evidence against him to show that he committed offences under Sections 406 or 498-A I.P.C. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. Criminal proceedings on the basis of complaint P-1 against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
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