Krishan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jul 2010
- Bench
- NIRMALJIT KAUR
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 173, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 494
Key paragraphs
- Para 2424. Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the “action” and not…
Judgment
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 94 dated 08/16.07.2003 (P-2) under Sections 498-A, 494, 109, 120-B, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi and the summoning order dated 13.05.2005 (P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi. The marriage of the complainant/respondent No. 2 was CRM No. M 2342of 2009 2 solemnised with Virender alias Balinder son of Jagat Ram. A girl child was born out of this wedlock. The complainant left her matrimonial home in
December, 2002. The brother of the complainant lodged an FIR No. 92 dated 24.05.2003 under Section 498-A, 494 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar against the husband and in-laws along with the present petitioners. After registration of the case, a detailed investigation was carried out by the Investigation Officer. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and only challan was filed against the husband and in-laws. The challan was dropped under Section 494 IPC and the same was filed only under Section 498-A/406 IPC against accused Virender (husband of respondent No. 2) and Jagat Ram alias Jagtu (father- in-law of respondent No. 2) and Sona Devi (mother-in-law of respondent No. 2). While submitting the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 were found innocent because they are residing separate and they are paying separate chula tax. On coming to know of the same, the present complaint No. 94 dated 08/16.07.2003 under Section 498-A, 494, 109, 120-B, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi. In the said complaint, respondent No. 2 roped in the whole family of the husband. In pursuance to the complaint, all the petitioners as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law were summoned vide order dated
13.05.2005 (P-3). The revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 02.09.2008 (P-4). It is important to mention here that the husband of the complainant, namely, CRM No. M 2342of 2009 3 Virender alias Balinder died on 15.12.2007. The present quashing petition is, therefore, being filed on behalf of brother-in-law (Krishan Kumar) petitioner No. 1, wife of petitioner No. 1 (Nita), sister-in-laws of the complainant, namely, Bala and Bimla-petitioners No. 3 and 4 respectively. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, vehemently opposed the quashing petition on the ground that the complainant was treated with cruelty and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in December,2002. She came to her parental house and delivered a female child. Taking benefit of the absence of the complainant, Virender (since deceased) husband of the complainant was re-married with Smt.
Geeta, younger sister of her Jethani. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The allegations qua the harassment and dowry articles as mentioned in the complaint are as under:-
The articles given at the time of marriage and muklawa was with the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. The above said accused-husband of the complainant, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law harassed the complainant for brining less dowry and also gave beating to the complainant and also threw her out from the matrimonial home by giving her beatings.
The allegations as is evident in the complaint are vague. The alleged dowry articles are stated to be with all the accused i.e. husband of the complainant, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. Thus, it is evident from the complaint that there is no specific entrustment of any particular dowry article to any one of the petitioners.
It is further alleged that all of them gave beatings to the complainant and that when the main CRM No. M 2342of 2009 4 accused Virender (since deceased) performed 2nd marriage with Geeta then all were present. There is no date, time or any reference to any medical report to state that as to when the petitioners gave beatings to the complainant. All the family members have been enroped in. No member of the family of the husband has been spared. Not even the married sisters of the husband have been spared. It is not denied that the present petitioners were declared innocent in the FIR lodged against them on the basis of the same allegations. They were found innocent on account of the fact that they were residing separately. It is also a fact that the husband of the complainant-Virender has since died. Another Single Bench of this Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, while relying on the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kans Raj v.
State of Punjab and others reported as 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 695 held as under:- “22. Another judgement rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case (supra) relied by Mr. Saini, this Court while relying upon a judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their Lordships have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and CRM No. M 2342of 2009 5 others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68 in which their Lordships while quashing the proceeding against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in as many relations of the husband.
Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the “action” and not the “section” may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing with the dowry menace, however, observed in para 17 as under:- “ The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomny (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till CRM No. M 2342of 2009 6 then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears.
There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalised statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations.
It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.” CRM No. M 2342of 2009 7 All the family members have been enroped in the present case. Even otherwise, the present petitioners were found innocent during investigation. No date and time is given to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. The allegations of etnrustment of dowry articles against the present petitioners are vague. They are residing separately. The main accused i.e. the husband of the complainant has since died. They have been enroped in only to pressurise them. It would also be relevant to state that the mother-in-law Sona Devi, father-in-law Jagat Ram had filed CRM M 4346 of 2009 seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint. However, learned counsel in that case has very fairly withdrawn the said petition with liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial Court.
Lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurise the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. In the light of the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Divya alias Babli and others (supra), the present petition qua the present petitioners are allowed. Accordingly, complaint No. 94 dated 08/16.07.2003 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 498-A, 494, 109, 120-B, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi and the summoning order dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure P3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi as well as the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.
28.07.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 173, 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 494.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Jul 2010. The bench was NIRMALJIT KAUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.