Tarsem Lal Sharma & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.48 dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC by the police of Police Station City Hoshiarpur, in the manner described here-in-above.

3. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and filed the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that they have been falsely implicated. In fact, the complainant was at fault. She left her matrimonial home of her own as per mutual agreement (Annexure P2). There are general allegations of demand of dowry against the petitioners.

4. Assailing the initiation of criminal prosecution, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended with some amount of vehemence that although there are false allegations against all the accused, but very very vague allegations are alleged with regard to demand of dowry against petitioners No.1 (Jeth) and No.2 (Jethani) and at least, no offence is made out against them and prayed for quashing Criminal Misc.No.M-16891 of 2010 3 the criminal prosecution in this context.

5. On the contrary, the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 urged that as there are direct allegations against all the accused that they treated the complainant with cruelty on account of and in connection with the demand of dowry, therefore, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. Thus, they sought dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly allowed.

7. As is evident from the record that petitioner No.1 Tarsem Lal Sharma is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the complainant, while petitioner No.2 Poonam Sharma is his wife (Jethani). All the direct allegations of demand of dowry are assigned to petitioner No.4 Mohit Sharma (husband) and petitioner No.3 Santosh (mother-in-law) of the complainant. The very very vague and general allegations are assigned to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. According to the complainant, her husband, inter-alia, demanded one Alto car and cash of Rs.2 lacs and her mother-in-law Santosh kept on shouting that if she does not fulfill this demand, then she will be killed. The only allegations against petitioner No.2 are that at the time of settlement, the father of the complainant gave Rs.1 lac in cash to her husband Mohit Sharma. After counting the money, he handed over the same to Poonam Sharma (Jethani). No other role or overt act is attributed to them in this respect.

8. Meaning thereby, the allegations of the complainant in the entire FIR can conveniently be bifurcated and separated as regards petitioner Nos.1 and 2 vis- a-vis petitioner Nos.3 and 4. As indicated earlier, all the direct allegations of demand of cash and Alto car are assigned to husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. Moreover, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (Jeth and Jethani) respectively are not in any way beneficiary to the demand of Alto car and cash. In this manner, for the fault of the husband, the other relations cannot be held to be involved in the Criminal Misc.No.M-16891 of 2010 4 demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt act attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be specifically alleged and by mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held responsible for the offence relating to the demand of dowry articles, as in the instant case.

9. As strange as it may appear but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the wives for involving and roping in all the relations of her in-laws in the matter of demand of dowry have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting social edifies and fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch to separate the grain from the chaff. This tendency needs to be curbed and if not discouraged, it is likely to affect and weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in this direction.

10. An identical question arose before this Court in Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597; wherein it was ruled that “the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of section 498-A IPC.” The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Therefore, to my mind, the petition qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be accepted, under the present set of circumstances.

11. Be that as it may, but there are direct allegations of demand of dowry articles i.e. Alto car and cash against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 (husband and mother- in-law) of the complainant. Although, the father of the complainant was stated to have given Rs.1 lac to husband but still they started demanding car and cash. Criminal Misc.No.M-16891 of 2010 5 Specific role and overt act are assigned to them, inter-alia, that the husband of the complainant demanded one Alto car and cash of Rs.2 lacs and her mother-in-law stated that in case she does not fulfill this demand, then she will be killed. That means, specific role, overt act and direct allegations are assigned to husband and mother-in-law that they treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In this view of the matter, no case for quashing the FIR against them is made out.

12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case, the present petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings thereto, pertaining to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 only, are hereby quashed, while the petition qua petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

13. Needless to state that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.

14.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge