Lakha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur was previously wedded to one Ranjeet Singh on 8.12.2003. But because of incongruous conditions arisen in their family life, they decided to part their ways and, accordingly, on the 2 basis of mutual settlement/agreement arrived at between them, out of the court, on 5.6.2006, they divorced each other. Thus, Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur is a divorcee. Subsequently, she was espoused with Lakha Singh, applicant petitioner no. 1, on 25.1.2007 as per Sikh rituals. Having passed a couple of months blissfully, the accused applicants, namely, Lakha Singh (husband), Avtar Singh (younger brother-in-law), Aman Deep (unmarried sister-in- law) and Darshan Singh (father in-law) began to raise the demand of dowry. When their said demand was not fulfilled, they adopted atrocious attitude towards Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and started torturing her. She was being assaulted by the accused applicants, who also hurled filthy language on her. Many a times, she was kept confined in a locked room. She continued to tolerate all these atrocities just to preserve her family life. In between, she conceived a child. But the accused appellants, on the apprehension that she may deliver a female child, as was told to them by some trantric, forced her to undergo miscarriage using medicines.

#3. In course of time, Avtar Singh adopted lecherous attitude towards her. He made sexual advancements to Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and, on one fateful day, when other family members except Aman Deep were away from home, Avtar Singh, all of a sudden, came in the room of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur when she was sleeping and embraced her with intention to commit sexual intercourse. Hearing the shouts of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, her sister-in-law Aman Deep though came there, but she did not help her. Rather, she closed the door of room from outside leaving Avtar Singh and Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur inside. Thereafter Avtar Singh raped her extending various threats. In this way, Aman Deep facilitated the rape and was instrumental in commission of the said crime. When this Act of Avtar Singh 3 was complained of by Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur to her father-in- law Darshan Singh and husband Lakha Singh, she was asked to keep quite. Not only this, even Darshan Singh began to make sexual advancements to Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and she was also allegedly raped by him. There was none to whom Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur could have told about the harassments and atrocities meted out to her by the accused applicants. She alleged that she was repeatedly raped by Avtar Singh and Darshan Singh. A lot more allegations have been made against the applicants in the FIR. It has also been averred that although she tried her level best to save her matrimonial life keeping in view the fact that she was already divorced once, but when the atrocities crossed all the limits, she somehow managed to escape from her matrimonial house and reached to her native place (father(cid:146)s house) at Dehradun. There too, she remained silent in the hope of normalization of her matrimonial life and lied to her father that she had been advised rest for 2-3 months by the Doctor. But when her in- laws took no care and did not enquire about her, then on asking of her father, she narrated all the incidents, which allegedly took place with her at the hands of accused applicants. Thereafter, the impugned FIR was lodged on

6.6.2008.

#4. Learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners contended that Lakha Singh had moved an application to Station Officer, Kunda on 8.2.2008 disclosing therein that Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur was fetched by her father Gurcharan Singh on that day itself without any information to, or permission from the applicants. Lakha Singh also moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 19.3.2008 against Gurcharan Singh and one unknown person for lodging an FIR against them. The same was referred to the Marriage 4 Counseling Cell on 26.3.2008 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur never turned up for the marriage counseling. So, the reference by the Magistrate became redundant.

#5. Lakha Singh also instituted a Criminal Complaint Case No. 8/2007 on 22.12.2007 against Gurcharan Singh (father in-law) and Palvinder Singh (mother in-law) alleging offences of Section 323, 504, 506 IPC against them, wherein cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned on

21.4.2008 for the offences punishable under Section 504 & 506 IPC.

#6. It argued behalf complainant/respondent no. 2 Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur that no sooner did she lodge the FIR against the petitioners, they influenced the Investigation Officer Smt. Jeeto Kamboj, and when she was asked to submit her report on the bail application moved by the accused petitioners, she reported to the Magistrate concerned that the petitioners were wanted only in connection with the offences of Section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition. She, under the influence of the accused applicants, deliberately withheld the fact that the FIR was also lodged under Section 376 & 313 IPC, in addition to aforesaid offences. The petitioners took advantage of this favourable report submitted by Investigation Officer and, after surrendering themselves, obtained bail on 1.7.2008 for the offences of Section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This act of Investigation Officer was complained by Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur with the State Police Complaint Authority on

6.10.2008. The said authority, having found Smt. Jeeto Kamboj guilty of a biased investigation, passed strictures 5 against her, which was duly communicated to the competent authority the Uttarakhand Police recommending appropriate action against the said Investigation Officer.

#7. Argument of learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners that bail order reflects the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the nature of offences is not at all tenable because no such finding has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application no. 517/2008 on 1.7.2008. Learned Sessions Judge has simply stated what was reported by the Investigation Officer to the District Government Advocate (Criminal) regarding the nature of offences allegedly committed by the accused applicants. This report made by the Investigation Officer Smt. Jeeto Kamboj as well as the manner in which she conducted the investigation was already found to be biased by an independent authority vide its elaborate report dated 24/29.7.2009, which runs in eight pages.

#8. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants also contended that all the offences were allegedly committed in village Kunda, which comes within territorial jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar and, therefore, the courts at Dehradun have no jurisdiction over the matter. In support of his argument, he placed his reliance upon a precedent of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court rendered in case of Y. Abraham & Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100. But this precedent has already been overruled by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court itself in case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap & State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 412, wherein it has categorically been held that offence of dowry demand is a 6 continuing one and any event at other place in connection therewith is only a consequence at the continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to a married woman in her matrimonial house even after her return to her father(cid:146)s house. So, in this way, the contention of the learned Counsel is wholly unacceptable.

#9. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners that Ms. Aman Deep was 14 years(cid:146) old, while Avtar Singh was aged 10 years(cid:146) on

24.6.2004 as is revealed by the photocopy of the family ration card. Obviously, this ration card was got prepared on

24.6.2004 and it can be well understood that age of all the family members have been recorded therein by the concerned Class III official of the Supply Department at their own disclosures. This is not a reliable document, much less conclusive one. If they wanted to take any benefit of age of Aman Deep and Avtar Singh, then some school leaving certificate or other similar document would have been much better document. Furthermore, Aman Deep, though an unmarried daughter of Darshan Singh, but she instrumental facilitating rape allegedly committed by Avtar Singh upon the body of Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur. Besides, the allegations of dowry demand as well as assault and beating has equally been levelled raised against her also.

#10. It has further been contended that Darshan Singh is a differently abled person and in support thereof photocopy of the Handicap Certificate issued by the CMO, Udham Singh Nagar has been annexed. A perusal of this certificate reveals that the same has been issued on

15.10.2009 i.e. much after the implication of the applicants petitioners including Darshan Singh in the instant FIR. So, 7 it seems to have been procured malafidely just to save his skin and, veracity of the same can only be judged by the trial court.

#11. In the abovenarrated facts & circumstances of the case and the legal proposition (supra), the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Stay order dated

9.1.2009, passed by this Court, stands vacated.

#12. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly to proceed further with the trial.

5.3.2012 Prabodh (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)