CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court, in para No. 1 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 2 “The complainant, Rita Rani, has filed this complaint alleging herself to be the wife of Karam Chand, accused no.1. It is averred that her marriage with Karam Chand was solemnized on 19.4.95 at village Manakpur as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. All the accused are related to each other. At the time of marriage her parents gave sufficient dowry articles to the accused, which have been duly mentioned in the list attached with the complaint. She sired a female child namely Kajal. The accused persons were not happy with the dowry articles and they stated maltreating the complainant for bringing fewer dowry. They also used to say that she is not fit match for accused no. 1 and started demanding Rs.50,000/-, motorcycle and a buffalo. When the complainant showed compulsion on the part of her parents, they started beating her. In December 1996, she was sent to her parental home to fulfill their demand. A Panchayat was convened by her parents and matter was reported to the police. In the Panchayat accused apologized and promised not to misbehave with her. After that complainant lived peacefully in her matrimonial home for some time, but they again started harassing her. She was again sent to her parents for their demand of dowry. Again a Panchayat was convened and in that Panchayat a compromise was inked. The accused assured not to harass her again, but they did not change their ordeal. On 2.5.97 the accused again turned her out of her matrimonial home. They did not return her Istridhan. Since then she along with her daughter is living with her parents. Even on repeated requests of the parents of the complainant, the accused CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 3 refused to return her Istridhan. Hence, a prayer to set the criminal law in motion has been made.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of leave to file appeal to the applicant is made out. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant, in paras 24, 25 to 29 of its judgment has held as under:- “24.The stand of the complainant does not seems to be trust worthy to the court for the reason that as per the complainant version, accused demanded motorcycle, buffalo and Rs.50,000/-, but she has not uttered even a single word, when such demand was made and when she was sent to her parental home for bringing these articles. Moreover, as per the complainant version a compromise Ex.C1 was arrived between the parties in the police station in which the accused apologized. A perusal of compromise ExC1 reveals that it was agreed between the parties that both will listen to each other and accused Karam Chand will not involve his sister-in-law (bhabhi) in his family matters. As per the complainant version she was sent back to her matrimonial home but again after some time she was turned out of her matrimonial home and again a compromise took place the parties in village Kotarkhana on 7.4.96. A perusal of Ex.C2 which is compromise between Karam Chand and Reeta Rani, reveals that their marriage was solemnized one year ago. The relation between the parties was not sweet due to some reason. The matter was compromised and it was agreed that parties will live CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 4 peacefully and happily. In both compromises there is no mention of demand of dowry. There is no averment in the compromise that the accused ever demanded motorcycle Rs,50,000/-, buffalo etc. from the complainant. It seems that matter was something else. As the marriage could not be successful, the allegation of dowry demand has been imposed upon the accused. It is admitted case that Reeta Rani has already taken an exparte divorce from the accused. It seems that she wanted to get rid of the accused in one or the other as their marriage was not successful.

25.It is not unknown that there may be bickering in the martial life between the husband and wife and consequential outbursts either by the husband or by the wife. The bickering in between the husband and wife may be on account of the husband giving to bad ways and becoming an addict to vices like women and wine. The bickering may also occur on account of the husband becoming spendthrift and squandering the properties. Such bickering between the spouses might lead to disharmony in the family life. This disharmony may be on account of the husband giving to bad ways or in sequel to his conduct towards his wife on account of such bad vices. Undoubtedly, therefore, the husband developing views ipso facto would not tantamount to cruelty. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the husband must be something more than the husband addicting to vices. That is reason why the expression `willful conduct' has been aptly used by the Legislature. The conduct on the part of the husband alone is not sufficient, but it should be accompanied by the necessary intention on the part of CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 5 the husband. In that view of the matter, the word `willful gains much significance in the context. Therefore, the willful conduct must be other than mere desertion of the wife or the children by the husband. Otherwise, every act of the husband in a family bickering between the spouses should have to be considered as willful conduct on his part attracting the offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

26. The witnesses examined by the complainant are also of no help to her for the reason that none of the witnesses of the complainant has stated that the accused has demanded dowry in the shape of motorcycle, buffalo and Rs.50,000/- in their presence. They have admitted the execution of compromise Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. As per the stand of complainant and her witnesses, the complainant was beaten by the accused when she failed to fulfill the illegal demand of accused, but no medical evidence in the shape of Medico Legal Report has been placed on file. PW2 Dharam Pal has stated that medical was not got conducted for the reason that compromise was arrived at between the parties in the police station and they wanted to adjust the girl with her husband. CW3 Babu Ram has stated that although complainant had marks of beatings on her body, but she was not got medico legally examined. But the complainant has stated that she was not medically examined because there was no mark of beatings on her body

27. In these circumstances, it is very much clear from the compromise Ex.C1 and ExC2 hat there was bickering in between CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 6 Reeta Rani and Karam Chand which led to disharmony in their family life and as the petitioner could not continue her married life, she wanted to get rid of accused no1. After punishing them. Had there been any demand of dowry etc. the same must have been mentioned in the compromise Ex.C1 and compromise Ex.C2 dated 7.4.96. So, the complainant has miserably failed to show that which of the accused demanded which article and when the demand was made.

28.So far as the offence regarding criminal breach of trust is concerned, no doubt the complainant has specifically stated that the accused did not return her Istridhan but she has not uttered even a single word which specific article was entrusted to which of the specific accused. She has not uttered when she demanded Istridhan and when the accused refused to return the same. It has been held in case titled as Jasbir Karu versus Karamjit Kaur, 1998(1)RCR 532 criminal complaint by wife against husband and other relatives for misappropriating dowry articles. No specific allegations regarding entrustment of any particular article of dowry to any particular person nor of any particular time and occasion when the return of such article was demanded by wife and refused to her. Complaint quashed. In the present case also mere vague allegation of entrustment is not sufficient to prove charge under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code.

29.So far as contention regarding charge under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, the complainant has not specifically stated when she was threatened to be killed by the accused. Mere vague CRM.A.No.188-MA of 2008 7 allegations that threat was given, is not sufficient to prove the act of the accused falling within the mischief of section 506 of IPC. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused under Section 506 IPC. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents, are sound reasons. Learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was some matrimonial discord between the parties but the same did not fall within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court. Hence, no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal is made out. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge September 17 , 2010