Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Jeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3/10/2002
JUDGMENT
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. The petitioners were charge-sheeted Under Sections 406, 498A, I.P.C.
vide order dated 8.2.2000 on the ground that they have harassed and
humiliated the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry and for
committing criminal breach of trust as dowry articles entrusted to them
have been misappropriated.
2. During the pendency of the trial the petitioners filed an
application for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the
allegation in the FIR is also the subject matter in the divorce
petition Under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called
‘the Act’) before the Additional District Judge, Hissar. The divorce
petition was decided on 10.12.1996. The Civil Court in the divorce
proceedings has also held that the allegations levelled against the
petitioners that they had demanded the dowry and harassed the
complainant have been found false. The judgment of the Civil Court is
binding upon the Criminal Court. The complainant filed the reply to the
application. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar dismissed
the application vide order dated 6.8.1998. The petitioners aggrieved by
that order filed revision petition before the learned Sessions judge,
Hissar and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2002. Aggrieved
by that order, the petitioners have filed the petition Under Section
482, Cr. P.C. for dropping the proceedings and discharging them in FIR
No. 354, Police Station Civil Lines, Hissar, Under Sections 406, 498A,
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that on the basis of
the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Hissar dated
10.2.1996, the proceedings against the petitioners are not to be
dropped. He contended that in those proceedings there was an issue
whether respondent is guilty of the act of cruelty as mentioned in this
petition and the additional issue was also framed whether there was any
settlement between the parties as indicated in additional plea No. 1,
if so, the terms and effect thereof ? -OPR. He contended that issue No.
1 was decided in favour of the respondent and the decree of divorce was
passed in favour of Shalini on the ground that the respondent is guilty
of the act of cruelty.
4. Mr. Ajai Lamba, learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that the
divorce has been allowed in favour of the respondent on the ground that
the marriage between the parties is a dead marriage. He contended that
the judgment is to be read as a whole and not in isolation. He
contended that the learned Additional District Judge in paragraphs 17
and 18 has discussed in detail the act and conduct of both the parties.
After discussing the act and conduct of both the parties in paragraph
24, it has been specifically held that the charge of allegations
levelled by the respondent against the petitioner with regard to
cruelty and demand of dowry are not proved. He contended that in the
present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that they have
harassed and tortured the complainant on account of demand of dowry.
The subject matter in this petition as well as in the divorce petition
was the same. The findings recorded by the Civil Court are binding upon
the Criminal Court, therefore, the proceedings are to be dropped.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused
the record.
6. The sole point which is to be determined in this case is that
whether on the basis of the judgment passed by the Additional District
Judge, Hissar in a petition filed by Shalini Under Section 13 of the
Act the proceedings can be dropped or not.
7. The judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar
has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:
“On the demand of dowry, it was not pleaded by the petitioner in the
petition that a specific amount of Rs. one lac or two lacs were
demanded from the petitioner by the respondent as has been alleged
by her while making statement before this Court. The payment of Rs.
11,000/- by the father of the petitioner to her on March 12, 1991
was also not mentioned by the petitioner in the petition, as has
been stated by her while appearing into the witness box as P.W. 1.
It was only pleaded by her in her petition that at that time that is
March 12, 1991, she was given valuable articles by her parents as
was in their custom. By this an inference can be taken without any
hesitation that the statement of the petitioner that an amount of
Rs. one lac or two lacs was demanded from her by the respondent and
an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was paid by her father to her on March 12,
1991 appears to be incorrect. Had it been so, the same would have
been found mentioned in the petition because it was an important
factor to prove the cruelty by the petitioner on the part of the
respondent.
18. It is germane to mention here that the petitioner had stayed at
her matrimonial home only on four occasions during her marital life.
These are from the date of marriage that is February 18, 1991 till
February 21, 1991, from February 22, 1991 to February 25, 1991, from
March 12, 1991 to March 14, 1991 and thereafter from June 15, 1991
to June 20, 1991. The total period of the stay of the petitioner at
her matrimonial home as per her own version was 13 days in all. It
is the case of the petitioner that during her short stay at her
matrimonial home, she was given beating, abuses, and harassment on
the point of inadequate dowry given to her by her parents and
further demand of dowry was made. It is an admitted fact that the
parties belong to Hissar. As can be gleaned from the evidence led by
the parties, the parties arc affluent and belong to families of high
strata of society. The father of the petitioner is Deputy Director
in Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar. The real
uncle of the petitioner, Sh. Jawant Singh, was a Minister in the
State Government. The petitioner herself is educated. The respondent
is also running a restaurant in Hissar besides having agricultural
land. With this background, this Court is of opinion that in such a
short span of 13 days, demand of dowry, as has been alleged by the
petitioner, could not have been made by the respondent or his family
members. At the risk of repetition, it is being mentioned that had
it been so, the figure that is Rs. one lac or two lacs or Rs.
11,000/- must have been referred to in the petition by the
petitioner which she did not for the reasons best known to her. This
Court is conscious of a fact that in these days when the number of
divorce petitions are increasing in our society, this is one of the
easiest allegations to level against the husband by the wife. It is
easy to level it but it is very difficult to prove the same. It also
appears obnoxious that a bride, as the petitioner was, when left her
parental home for her permanent home that is her husband’s home
after the marriage on February 18, 1991 and stayed there upto
February 21, 1991 and during 2-3 days, she was given beating and
abuses by the respondent and his family members because it is in the
rarest of rate cases that such bad treatment would be given to the
bride by the bridegroom or his family members, particularly having
considered the background of the families, as has been indicated
above.”
8. The learned Additional District Judge has given a clear finding that
the charges of cruelty have not been proved. The learned Additional
District Judge has allowed the divorce on the ground that the marriage
between the parties is a dead marriage. The marriage was solemnised in
February, 1991 and they remained together only for 13 days. Under these
circumstances the divorce was allowed.
9. A perusal of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hissar
shows that the allegation of cruelty levelled by the complainant
against the petitioners has been disbelieved and it is settled
principle of law that the judgment rendered, by the Civil Court is
binding on the Criminal Court. Reliance can be placed upon Karamchand
Ganga Parshad and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1244;
Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Anr., II (1990),DMC
404=1990 (2) RCR 513; and Krishan Lal v. Devender Kumari, II (1991) DMC
498=1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319 (P&H).
10. There is no specific allegation in the complaint regarding the
entrustment of dowry articles as to whom the articles were given. When
there is no specific allegation, the charge cannot prove.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is accepted and the
order dated 6.8.1998 dismissing the application for dropping the
proceeding is set aside. The petitioners stand discharged.
