Satwinder Singh alias Chhinda Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No. 333 dated 18.7.2008, under Sections 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Ratia, District- Fatehabad. The contents of the complaint reads as under :- “1. That the marriage of complainant was solemnized on

13.12.2006 with Amrik Singh, Accused No.1, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies in village Burj, Tehsil Ratia, Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 2 District Fateabad. In this marriage, the father of the complainant had given dowry to the complainant in accordance with his capacity, list whereof is enclosed and this entire dowry was handed over in trust by the father of the complainant to the accused.

2. That Accused No.1 is the husband; Accused No.2 is the father-in-law; and Accused No.3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and all these accused are living together.

3. That after the marriage the complainant lived with her husband, Accused No.1, as his wife and had been performing all her duties as a wife. But the accused are greedy persons. They were not happy with the dowry given by her father in the marriage. For this reason, after some time of marriage, they started giving taunts to the complainant. They said that they were expected to have a Car in this marriage but the father managed only with a Motor Cycle and thus vanished all their expectations. Upon this, the complainant said that her father incurred money on this marriage more than his capacity. He was not in a position to give car and, as such, he could not give car in the dowry. But the accused did not satisfy and for this reason they remained annoyed with the complaint.

4. That after the marriage, as the time passed by the accused started making direct demand from the complaint for car. For this reason, the accused also started causing beatings to the complainant. Whenever the complainant used to visit her parents, she used to tell her father about this and then he used to Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 3 take the complainant to the accused persons after praying before them used to leave the complainant with the accused.

5. That Accused No.2 and 3 often used to tell the complainant that they had been getting relations for their son, Amrik Singh (Accused No.1) from various rich families and they were prepared to give Care and it was their bad luck that they selected her for marriage. In their greed of dowry, the accused, with their common intention, used to cause severe beatings to the complainant and used to cause harassment and embarrassment to her and used to torture her physically and mentally but the complainant, keeping in view the helplessness of her father, had been tolerating their sufferings and had been passing the time.

6. That on 2.4.2007 all the accused with their common intention caused severe beatings to the complainant and after causing beatings to her, put her in a closed room and said neither the complainant brings Car nor she has become pregnant and, therefore, she is of no use to them. The accused kept the complainant confined in a room for three years. When Jaswant Singh, brother of the complainant, came to meet her, he took her out of the room. At that time, the condition of the complainant was very bad and she had turned to be very weak. The brother of the complainant took her to Ratia and got her admitted in 'Singh Hospital'.

7. That thereafter on 6.4.207 a panchayat of relations took place in which the accused apologies for their misdeeds on Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 4 which the parents of the complainant felt satisfied and keeping in view the future of the complainant did not initiate any action against the accused.

8. That thereafter for a few days the accused behaved nicely with the complainant, but thereafter they again started causing harassment to the complainant and started demanding car or cash in lieu thereof but the complainant had been tolerating taking it to be her fate.

9. That on 18.5.2008 at 5.00 P.M. Accused No.1 came home under the influence intoxication. On coming home and on seeing the complainant he got furious. He asked the complainant to get out. The complainant replied that she would stay here. Accused No.1 retaliated; caught hold of the complainant by her long hair and took her out of the house by creeping. But the complainant again entered home. Then complainants mother-in-law (Accused No.3) caught hold of the complainant by her long hair and Accused No.1 and 2 slapped her. The complainant fell on the ground. Then all the accused hit the complainant in her stomach and waist with their legs and said that in case the complainant lived in their house, they would kill her. On seeing the excessive cruel approach of the accused, the complainant became badly frightened. Then the complainant gave a telephonic call to her father. The complainant's father came along with Pargat Singh son of Baldev Singh, Resident of Bhawdeen; Harbhajan Singh son of Amrik Singh at the place of accused. The accused frankly Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 5 refused to keep the complainant with the demand of their car having been met. The father of the complainant and the aforesaid persons tried to make the accused understand but the accused were not prepared to keep the complainant. Father of the complainant became helpless and then he asked the accused to return the 'Istri Dhan' of the complainant. The accused frankly refused to return the 'Istri Dhan' of the complainant. Thus, the accused committed breach of trust. The complainant had given a written application to the Police Department in this regard. Despite the lapse of sufficient number of days no action has been taken against the accused. Therefore, the complainant is filing the present complaint.

10. That the residence of complainant is situate; and the marriage as also the dowry transactions had taken place within the jurisdiction of Tehsil and Police Station Ratia. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint." It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may be summoned and they be awarded severe punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed qua the petitioners as they had been falsely involved in this case. The petitioners had disowned their son and daughter-in-law and a public notice was given on 27.11.2007 much before the filing of the complaint by the complainant against the petitioners. The petitioners were found innocent during investigation and have been summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 6 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing of the complaint is made out. In the case of 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/respondent No.2, 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. (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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 7 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 27845 of 2009 (O&M) 8 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.” A perusal of the complaint shows that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners had filed a revision petition challenging the summoning order dated 17.2.2009, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 10.8.2009. Keeping in view the said factual position no ground for quashing of the complaint in question is made out. Dismissed. May 11, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE