10.2012. Dinesh Singhal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Suman Jain,Advocate, for respondent No.2. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No. 183, dated 01.08.2008, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Uklana, District Hisar, and the consequential Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 2 proceedings emanating therefrom. Prayer has further been made for quashing the charge sheet dated 24.09.2011. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2- complainant Vijay Kumar presented an application before the police on 01.08.2008 alleging that the marriage of his daughter, Neetu Jain, was solemnized with Dinesh Singhal son of Ved Parkash Singhal on 20.04.2007 at Uklana Mandi, District Hisar. He had spent approximately `4,00,000/- in the marriage. The dowry articles detailed in the list enclosed with the application were entrusted to the petitioners. The petitioners were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and as such Neetu Jain was being harassed by them. The petitioners used to say that Dinesh Singhal was an Advocate by profession, therefore, the complainant should have given a car in the dowry. When Neetu Jain expressed the inability of her parents to give more dowry in the cash and kind, then the petitioners in clear terms told her to bring the dowry as per their expectation. Finding no other alternative, Neetu Jain left her matrimonial home and came to her parents house and disclosed her woeful story to them. On 15.08.2007, Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 3 petitioners Usha Rani and Ved Parkash came to Uklana and respondent No.2-complainant gave `1,00,000/- to them in the presence of his brother Dev Raj Jain and requested them to treat his daughter, properly, as he was not in capacity to pay more dowry. For a few days, the behaviour of the petitioners remained normal but, thereafter, they again started raising demand of dowry and harassed Neetu Jain. On one occasion, Dinesh Singhal petitioner caused so much injuries to Neetu Jain that she had to lose her teeth from the lower jaw. She was even threatened to be murdered. The respondent-complainant brought the facts to the notice of his thick relations Balraj and Ram Niwas who went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and on seeing her condition, they enquired from the petitioners as to why she had been caused injuries. The daughter of the complainant continued to bear the misdeeds of the petitioners and ultimately finding no alternative, respondent No.1-complainant reported the matter to the police. On the basis of which, the FIR was registered and after thorough investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 4 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 21.01.2009, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Revision Petition filed in court of Session challenging the order of framing the charges was dismissed vide order dated

03.04.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings pending before the learned court below are misuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the husband of Neetu Jain, i.e. petitioner Dinesh Singhal, had filed a petition for grant of divorce, therefore, as a counter- blast, the FIR was lodged by the father of Neetu Jain. He further submitted that Uklana police had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. He also argued that the dowry articles were returned to the complainant side, therefore, no offence has been made out against the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant argued that the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 5 Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated 03.04.2010 whereby the revision petition filed by them challenging the order of framing of charge was dismissed. He further submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on disputed questions of facts which can be decided during the course of trial. He further submitted that there are specific allegations in the FIR that the marriage had taken place at Uklana and the dowry articles on the demands of the petitioners were entrusted to them at Uklana, therefore, the police at Uklana had the jurisdiction to register the case. He further submitted that the learned trial court finding a prima facie case had ordered to frame the charges and even the revision filed by the petitioners challenging the order of framing the charge has already been dismissed, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any concession from this Court at this stage. Heard. There are specific allegations in the FIR that the marriage was solemnized at Uklana and the dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Uklana. Even after the marriage, some of the petitioners visited Uklana and on their demand, the dowry articles were entrusted to them by Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 6 the complainant side. At this stage, the court has to see as to whether from the contents of the FIR and the other material collected during the course of investigation, a facie case for proceeding against the petitioners/accused is made out or not. Both the courts below have already held that there was prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners for which they have been charged. This court has also appraised the material available on record and find that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitioners. The charges have already been framed and even the criminal revision presented before the learned Court of Session has also been dismissed. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are smeared with the disputed questions of facts and the same would be decided by the learned trial court after scanning the substantive evidence to be led by both the parties. It is settled proposition that the High Court should exercise the inherent powers in exceptional cases and only where there is a abuse of the process of law. As a sequel to the above, no ground is made out for quashing the impugned FIR and the consequential Crl.Misc.No.M-36585 of 2011 7 proceedings arising therefrom. Resultantly, present criminal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

10.10.2012. Anoop (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE