Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 30.1.2020
Manjit Kaur
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4–complainant.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioner by way of instant petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to have FIR No. 33 dated 26.3.2014
under Section 498A IPC registered at Police Station Guraya, Jalandhar, and
all subsequent proceedings arising thereform quashed.
2. In brief, the facts are that brother of the petitioner solemnized
marriage with respondent No.4, namely Reena Kumari in the year 2005, out
of which wedlock a male child was born. In the year 2014, the complainant
got registered the aforesaid FIR alleging that her husband had gone to
Greece and for the past three years has been living there. After having left,
he did not give her any expenses with a result all her expenses had been met
by her parents. In the said FIR, there are also allegations that the accused,
1 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 2
namely, Shinder Pal (husband), Manjit Kaur (sister-in-law, petitioner
herein), Gagandeep Gona, Kamaljit Kaur, Rachna, Surinder Kaur (sister-in-
law), Rakesh Kumar, Ashwani, Rahul, Ajay sons of Satpal, Dharampal and
Rajpal, had been harassing the complainant immediately after her marriage,
while submitting that she wanted to reside with her husband in her
matrimonial home. Pursuant to the said FIR, the matter was investigated
and it was recommended that a case be registered under Section 498-A
against Shinder Pal (husband), Manjit Kaur and Surender Kaur (sisters-in-
law). Aggrieved against the registration of the FIR, the instant petition has
been filed by Manjit Kaur-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues
that the FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and a reading of
the same would show that the allegations made therein are vague without
disclosing the true and correct facts. It is submitted that the petitioner was
married 34 years ago and was living with her husband in Greece and,
therefore, there was no occasion for her to interfere in the daily matrimonial
life or to raise a demand of dowry and therefore, prays for quashing of the
FIR instituted against her.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant would argue that the petitioner is none other than the sister-in-
law of the complainant and she was amongst other who had harassed the
complainant for brining inadequate dowry and, therefore, the question of
quashing of the FIR would not arise.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance have gone through the pleadings of the parties.
2 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 3
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein is a resident of
Greece and, therefore, would not be interfering in the daily matrimonial life
of the complainant. Even otherwise a reading of the FIR would show that no
specific allegations have been made regarding demand of dowry, while at
the same time it could clearly be borne out that her sole grouse is against her
husband who had gone abroad and left her without taking care of her
financially. The allegations of harassment and beatings are general without
details of the date or place where she was subjected to such atrocities in her
matrimonial home. At the same time, it is stated in the FIR that she wants to
live with her husband in her matrimonial home and sought help to bring her
husband back from abroad or she be taken by her husband along with him or
her expenses to be met. It is relevant to note that in the complaint, the
complainant made allegations of harassment and torture against as many as
12 persons and after investigation, the police registered the FIR qua the
three persons mentioned above. The petitioner is married sister-in-law of the
complainant and has been residing in Greece for the last 34 years and as
such the chances of her involvement in the matrimonial affair of the
complainant are very bleak. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in several cases that there has now been an increasing tendency of roping in
every member of the family by registering a case which arises out of the
matrimonial dispute and this practice has been deprecated time and again. In
a case reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 B.S. Joshi and others Versus
State of Haryana and another, it was observed that the object of
introducing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the
torture of a woman at the hands of her husband or relatives. The Hon’ble
3 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 4
Apex Court went on to hold that if the FIR, as it stands, does not disclose
specific allegations against the accused, more so against the co-accused,
specially in a matter arising out of the matrimonial bickering, it would be a
clear abuse of process of law and judicial process to mechanically send the
named accused in the FIR to undergo trial. It was further held that it is a
well settled principle that in case an FIR does not disclose the commission
of offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. In
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [1977] 4 SCC 551 a three-Judge
Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:
“… In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation
which is an abuse of the process of the Court, or for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High
Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in
Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent
power by the High Court. Such cases would necessarily be few
and far between. One such case would be the desirability of the
quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally,
vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case
would undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of the High
Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even
assuming, that the invoking of the revisional power of the High
Court is impermissible.”
7. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 565 the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed in para No. 7 as under:
“7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at
the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by
the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court4 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 5to take into consideration any special features which appear in
a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique
purpose and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage.”
8. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
1991 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 383 Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the backdrop of
interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by
the Supreme Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, 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 made 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.
5 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 6
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not 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 a 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 a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.
9. There are a catena of judgments, one such case being Preeti
Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2010 (4) RCR
(Crl.) 45 where it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is
unfortunate tendency to rope in all family members in the matrimonial
dispute. Even in the instant case herein, a bare reading of the FIR, as such,
does not disclose commission of offence under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, as
there are no specific allegations of either demand or entrustment of dowry
6 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 7
qua the petitioners. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that continuing of proceedings
against the petitioners in FIR would tantamount to an abuse of process of
court and therefore, it is a fit case warranting interference under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 33 dated
26.3.2014 under Section 498A IPC registered at Police Station Guraya,
Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua are
quashed qua the petitioner.
30.1.2020 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
prem JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
7 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
