Dr.Gyanendra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

the trial Court qua them. Notice of motion was issued qua petitioner No.3. The contents of the FIR read as under:- " F.I.R. No.6 d;ated 2.1.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A in Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala. Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 2 To, the SSP, Punjab Police, Patiala, Subject: complaint against Dr.Shelendra Prashar s/o Dr. Gyanendra Sharma, s/o Shri Dutt Sharma (father-in-law), Beena Sharma w/o Gyanendra Sharma (Sas), Shivendra Prashar s/o Gyanendra Sharma (Deor) all R/o H.No.329, Sector 5-A, Mansa Devi Complex Panchkula(Haryana). Complainant Dr. Anjali Sharma PP Model town, PS Civil Lines, Patiala. Sir, it is prayed. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on

29.1.2001 at Patiala according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Parties have one male child namely Shaan Prashar aged about 5 ½ years who is living with the complainant now. That after the solemnization of the marriage, the complainant and Dr.Shelendra Prashar resided together and consummated their marriage as husband and wife at their matrimonial house at Panckula. Before marriage four ceremonies i.e. One roka ceremony, one ring ceremony, one Lagan ceremony and shagan ceremony were performed at which a total expenditure of about Rs.2,12,735/- was incurred by the parents of the complainant. Detailed list attached. Roka ceremony was performed at Gymkhana Club Panchkula on

29.10.2000 morning and ring ceremonies were performed at Narain Continental Patiala in the evening under specific demand of the parents of Sh.Shelendra Prashar. Lagan ceremony and Shagan ceremony were got performed by the parents of Sh.Shalendra Prashar at the residence of these persons on

19.1.2002 at Panchkula. All these articles were entrused to these persons. Parents of the complainant according to their status Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 3 performed the marriage ceremony at Palm Court Patiala and for stay of these persons arrangement was made at Balson Hotel Urban Estate Patiala. All these persons came in a Barat comprising about 150 persons. Snacks, Dinner and stay arrangements were made by the parents of the complainant at which a total expenditure of about Rs.2,93,000/- were incurred. Parents of the complainant gave about 27 tolas of gold to the parents and relatives and in addition gold ornaments totaling 20 tolas to me, suits, kitchen utensils, furniture's, beddings and electronics items detailed list of which is attached. A total expenditure of about Rs.11 lacs was incurred. All these articles were entrusted to these people who took them to their Panchkula residence. With in a few weeks of the marriage these people started taunting the complainant that she has not brought dowry befitting their status. Parents of Shalendra Prashar started taunting that they were expecting at least 40 lacs in marriage. They openly boasted that their family members and relatives are in High Govt. posts. The attitude of all these persons was very cruel and complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. On petty matters she was insulted in front of other people. On festivals and other occasions parents of the complainant were forced to bring gifts, gold ornaments and cash etc for all these people for which also detailed list is attached. All these peoples with their ulterior objectives forced the complainant to live in a rented accommodation at Panchkula. Complainant was allowed to take very few articles of daily use. Most of the Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 4 articles including electronic goods etc and jewellery were kept by the parents of Dr.Shalendra Prashar. Complainant alongwith her husband started living there but all these people continued to interfere in the day-to-day life of the complainant. These accused often came to the matrimonial house and abused and even physically beaten up the complainant. The complainant, though a qualified doctor, was not allowed to attend the clinic. Numerous demands were raised by these people, which were complied by the parents of the complainant even though they were not in a position to fulfill their demands. All these people forced the complainant to undergo abortion against her wishes. In 7/2002 Dr.Shelendra Prashar left the complainant at her parents house. He often came and demanded money and with great effort on one occasion at his persistent demand when he was to go to New Zealand, father of the complainant gave of Rs.41,000/-. Complainant was pregnant at that time. On 3.5.2003 male child namely Shaan was born but even at that time these people did not come to Patiala and never inquired about the complainant and her child. As all the dowry articles were lying at the main house at Panchkula with the parents of Dr.Shalendra Prashar, parents of the complainant against had to arrange many articles under there pressure. During this period Dr.Shelendra Prashar went to New Zealand twice. Later on he opened a clinic at Ambala City. During this period, he used to take money from people on the garb of sending them abroad. Even an FIR no.244 dated 11.8.2007 was registered at Baldev Nagar Police Station Ambala City Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 5 against Sh.Shalendra Prashar and Sh.Gyanendra Sharma. In 5/2007 he closed the clinic and shifted to Pinjore. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of HM Act to colour his illegal acts. Complainant attended the court and thinking that now good sense may prevail on him agreed to live with him for the sake of the son also. Once she shifted there the same behaviour was repeated rather with added vigour. Complainant requested the parents to hand over household articles, furniture, electronic goods and jewellery lying with them but they flatly refused. Complainant even reconciled to this fact also. Her parents again gave her articles of daily use. The circumstances became bad to worse. All these people used to come to the matrimonial house and beat up the complainant. After the birth of son of complainant's brother parents of the complainant went to Pinjore on 5.9.2008 to take her to Patiala. All these people were present there. Complainant and her parents were abused by them. All these people said that if they really want to celebrate the birth of grandson then they should given Rs.5 lacs to them otherwise they will not take back the complainant to the matrimonial house. Later on with great difficulty parents send the complainant to the house. In the month of Oct.,2008 the position became so bad that it became a daily affair that all these people came to Pinjore and physically abused the complainant and told me clearly to bring 10 lacs otherwise she will be killed. Complainant told all this to her parents on phone. On 31.10.2008 late night complainant was severally beaten up by Sh.Shalendra Prashar alongwith his father Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 6 and other members and gave me foot and fist blows. Father of the Dr. Shalendra Prashar caught hold of the complainant from the hair and threw me on the floor. They switched on the stereo to drown my cries. With great difficulty complainant escaped from their clutches and rang her parents who reached there at midnight. They went to Police Station Pinjore and informed them. With intervention of the police, the complainant alongwith her son were brought to Patiala in three clothes. In the morning parents alongwith about 20 respectable people went to Pinjore. All these people were present there. They were requested to take back the complainant her son but they flatly refused unless my parents pay them the demanded money as mentioned above. Later on a DDR No.14 dated 1.11.2008 was also got registered by me in the Police Station Pinjore. Even on 9.11.2008 parents of the complainant alongwith some respectables went to the house of these people and requested them to take back the complainant and her son. They openly said that unless my parents pay Rs.10 lacs they will not take the complainant back. These people were then requested to return the dowry articles and Istri Dhan but they flatly refused. All the articles of the complainant including dowry articles and Istri dhan are lying with these people and they are using them. On

10.11.2008 complainant got a call on the landline number 0175- 3293670 at about 1.15 p.m from a mobile No.099978-64193 and a person in male voice threatened that she alongwith her family members will be eliminated. It is humbly prayed that necessary action under various provisions of the IPC, dowry act and Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 7 domestic violence Act may kindly be initiated against these people. I feel threat to my life, my son and my family members." Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of the husband of the complainant. No specific allegation has been levelled against petitioner No.3 and he has been roped in this case being brother of the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand has submitted that petitioner No.3 had been instigating his brother (husband of the complainant) to harass the complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 8 (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 9 mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2)RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P1) reveals that there is no specific allegation levelled against petitioner No.3.It appears that petitioner No.3 has been involved in this case being younger brother of the husband of the complainant.Since there is no specific allegation against petitioner No.3, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR qua petitioner No.3 Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 6 dated

2.1.2009 registered under Sections 406, 498-AIPC at Police Station Civil Crl.Misc. No.M-11904 of 2009 10 Lines Patiala District Patiala as well as the subsequent proceedings arising out therefrom are quashed qua petitioner No.3. (Sabina) Judge March 10, 2010