SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Neha vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 10 May, 2019

203
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFPUNJABHARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-4790of2016.
Decidedon:-May10,2019.

Neha.
………Petitioner.
Versus

StateofHaryanaandanother

………Respondents.

CORAM:HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEHARIPALVERMA.

*****
Present:-Mr.SumitSangwan,Advocate
forthepetitioner.

Ms.MahimaYashpal,A.A.G.,Haryana.

Mr.B.R.Gupta,Advocate
forrespondentNo.2-complainant.

HARIPALVERMA,J.

PetitionerNeha,whoisanunmarriedsister-in-lawofthe

respondentNo.2-complainanthasfiledthispetitionunderSection482Cr.P.C.

forquashingofFIRNo.39dated23.10.2015underSections498-A,Section323,Section506

andSection406readwithSection34IPCaswellasSection3oftheScheduled

CastesandSectionScheduledTribes(PreventionofAtrocities)Act,1989(forshort,

theSC/SectionSTAct)registeredatWomenPoliceStation,Bhiwaniandall

subsequentproceedingsarisingtherefrom.

TheaforesaidFIRwasregisteredatthebehestofrespondent

No.2Deepa,whowasmarriedwithAbhinavPalon11.05.2014.Theotherco-

accused,namely,AbhinavPalishusbandandVeenuismother-in-law.

1of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-2-

AspertheFIR,fatherofthecomplainantspentsufficientamount

onherbetrothalandmarriageceremonies.Shelivedwithherhusbandin

ModernHousingComplex,Manimajra,Chandigarh.However,afterthe

marriage,behaviourofherhusband,mother-in-lawandsister-in-law(present

petitioner)wasnotgoodtowardsher.Theyraiseddemandofmoredowryand

startedharassingher.Shewassubjectedtocrueltyforinsufficientdowry.Her

fathergavecashofRs.30,000/-andcertaingiftsontheoccasionofDiwali

festival.AgainhegavecashamountofRs.30,000/-andsomegiftstoherin-

lawsontheoccasionofLohrifestival.ThecomplainantbelongstoScheduled

Caste(Chamar)community,whereasherfather-in-lawbelongstoBackward

(Kamboj)community.Theyalsocalledherwithbadnamesandused

derogatorywordsagainstherfather.Sinceshewasconsistentlybeing

harassed,shemovedacomplainttotheSuperintendentofPolice,Bhiwanion

19.10.2015leadingtoregistrationofthepresentF.I.R.

Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasarguedthat,infact,

marriagebetweenrespondentNo.2-complainantwithAbhinavPalwasalove

marriage.Thecomplainantiswell-qualifiedladyholdingagazettedpost.She

herselfoptedtogetmarriedwithaboy,whoisabout8yearsyoungertoher.

SincethecomplainantbelongstoScheduledCaste,whereasthepetitioner

belongstoBackwardclass,theprovisionofoffenceunderSection3ofthe

SC/SectionSTActhasbeenmisused.Atthetimeofmarriage,thecomplainantwas

postedasAssistantProfessorinGovernmentCollege,Panchkulaandafter

marriage,shejoinedasAssistantProfessorinGovernmentCollege,Bawani

KherainJuly,2015.ThecomplainantgotherselftransferredfromPanchkula

2of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-3-

toBawaniKheraon02.07.2015onthegroundofcompletingherservicein

ruralareasinfulfilmentofconditionoftheGovernmentpolicy.

Hehasfurtherarguedthatsincethepartiestothemarriagecould

notpullwell,adivorcepetitionwasfiledbyAbhinavPalagainstrespondent

No.2-complainantinDistrictCourt,Chandigarhon15.10.2015.However,

respondentNo.2movedanapplicationbeforethisCourtseekingtransferof

saidpetitiontoBhiwaniCourt.Sinceitwasalovemarriagebetweenthe

parties,nodowryarticleswereexchangedandasitwasmarriageoftheliking

oftheparties,thepetitioner,whoisunmarriedeldersisterofAbhinavPal,

wasnotgoingtobebenefittedwithanydowryarticles.

Hehasfurthercontendedthatthereisnospecificallegation

againstthepetitionerfordemandofdowryorharassmentcausedto

respondentNo.2.Theonlyallegationagainstthepetitioneristhatshewasa

partywiththehusbandandmother-in-lawinharassingthecomplainant.

Asperthecomplainant,inthemonthofSeptember,when

parents-in-lawofthecomplainanthadgonetotheirnativeplaceYamuna

Nagartoattendamarriageinsomecloserelations,thepetitionerhadcutthe

hairofthecomplainantandhandedoverthesametohermother-in-law.The

allegationisthatwheneverthecomplainantusedtocomefromhercollege

andtotakerestinaroom,thenthepetitionerandmother-in-lawofthe

complainantusedtooustherfromtheroomandusedtosaythatthe

complainantdoesnotbelongtoaroyalfamilyand,therefore,directedthe

complainanttodothehouseholdworks.Withouttakingrest,thecomplainant

usedtofulfiltheobligationsasperthewishesofherin-laws.

3of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-4-

Learnedcounselforthepetitionerhasfurtherarguedthatthe

petitionerisbeingvictimizedofprevalentsyndromeofropinginevery

memberofthefamilyinsuchtypeofmatrimonialcriminallitigations.There

isnolegalevidenceclearlyormanifestlyadducedbythecomplainantto

substantiatetheallegations.TheallegationsintheFIR,iftakenattheirface

value,donotconstitutetheoffenceallegedquathepetitionerassheis

unmarriedsisterofthehusbandofcomplainant.Incasethepetitionerismade

tofacethetrial,itwouldproveastigmaonherlife.Thelawshouldbevigil

thatnoinnocentpersonismadetosufferfromtherigmaroleofthetrial.All

allegationsofcrueltyanddowrydemandwereatChandigarhinManimajra,

whereasthecomplainantinordertoharassthepetitionerandherfamily

membershadfiledthecomplaintatBhiwaniatherownconvenience.

Moreover,sheherselfgottransferredtoBawaniKhera,DistrictBhiwanisoas

tocompleteruralservicewhichisaconditionofherservice.Nocaseismade

outagainstthepetitionerunderSections498-A,Section323,Section506andSection406readwith

Section34IPCaswellasSection3oftheSC/SectionSTAct.Incasethecomplainant

wastorturedfromtheveryinception,therewouldnothavebeensuchan

inordinateandunexplaineddelayinlodgingthepresentFIR.Itisthe

complainantwhohascommittedcrueltyuponthepetitionerbyimplicating

herinafalsecase.Thecomplainantshouldnotbepermittedtotakebenefitof

herownwrong.ThemarriagebetweenAbhinavPalandthecomplainantwas

love-marriageandhardlyanydowrywasexchanged,butinordertosettlethe

score,thecomplainanthasmadefalseandbaselessallegationsagainstthe

petitionerandthewholefamily.Thepetitionerisworkingoncontractual

basisinGMCH,Sector-32,Chandigarhandthestorypropoundedbythe

4of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-5-

complainantisconcoctedwhichisaimedattohumiliateandharassthewhole

familyofthepetitioner.Now-a-days,ithasbecomeatendencytoinvolvethe

wholefamilyintheproceedingslikethepresentone.

LearnedStatecounselwhilemakingreferencetothereply

submittedbywayofaffidavitofVijayDeswal,HPS,DSP,Bhiwanihas

arguedthattheFIRwasregisteredonthecomplaintsubmittedbythe

complainantandduringinvestigation,accusedAbhinavPal(husband)was

arrested.TheChallanwaspresentedagainsthimbeforethetrialCourton

22.11.2015.Thereafter,supplementaryChallanhasbeenpresentedprepared

againstthepetitioneron04.02.2016.

LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2-complainanthasargued

thatmarriagebetweenAbhinavPalandthecomplainantwassolemnisedon

11.05.2014andafterthemarriage,herhusband,mother-in-lawandsister-in-

law(petitionerherein)startedharassingthecomplainantfordemandof

dowry.SincethecomplainantbelongstoScheduledCaste,shewasnamed

underthecaste.Thepetitionerandherfamilyusedtosaythatasthe

complainantbelongstoScheduledCaste,theycannoteatthefoodcookedby

her.Sometimes,thecomplainanthadnoticedthatherclotheswerefoundcut

fromdifferentplaces.Atthesametime,themother-in-lawofthecomplainant

usedtospendthreehoursinworshipintheroomofthepetitioner.Onasking

aboutsuchoffendingact,themother-in-lawofthecomplainantusedtopull

hairofthecomplainant,whereasthepetitionerusedtomoveherhairinthe

air.Theaccusedusedtoperform”dian-jadu”onthecomplainant,whichhad

bad/adverseeffectonthemindandbodyofthecomplainant.

5of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-6-

HehasfurtherarguedthatChallanagainstthepetitionerhasbeen

presentedbeforethetrialCourt.Therefore,theFIRcannotbequashedquathe

petitioner.HehasreferredtoSazidKhanVersusStateofHaryanaand

another2018(3)RCR(Criminal)992tocontendthatafterinvestigation,

policefoundangleofconspiracywhichinvolvedthepetitioneraswell.Once

thepolicehasfoundmaterialagainsttheaccusedandhadpresentedChallan

againstthepetitioner,theFIRcannotbequashed.Hehasalsoplacedreliance

uponSmt.RavinderKaurVersusCentralBureau(CBI)2015(2)RCR

(Criminal)871whereinthisCourthasheldthattheCourtcannotquashthe

proceedingswhenthematterhasbeeninvestigatedandcharge-sheethasbeen

submitted.Thedocumentshavetobeexaminedandtestedduringthe

proceedingspendingbeforethetrialCourt.

OnthestrengthofjudgmentofHon’bleBombayHighCourtin

SatishDharmuRathodandothersVersusTheStateofMaharashtraand

another2017(1)AIRBom.R(Cri)779,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2

hasarguedthatwhentheallegationslevelledintheFIRmakeoutaprima-

facieoffencesofmentalandphysicalcrueltyaswellasunlawfuldemandof

money,theproceedingscannotbequashedunderSection482Cr.P.C.

ReliancehasalsobeenplaceduponRahulBhargavaVersusState(NCT)of

Delhiandanother2018(4)RCR(Criminal)658,whereinHon’bleDelhi

HighCourthasheldthatthequestionastowhethertheavermentsmadeby

thecomplainantwerethegospeltruthornotcanonlybedecidedafterthe

partiesarerelegatedtotrial.TheCourt,atthisstage,cannotgranttheprayers

madeinthepetitionandnocaseismadeoutforquashingeitherthecomplaint

6of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-7-

ortheFIRregisteredatthebehestofthecomplainantunderSections498-A

andSection406readwithSection34IPC.

LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2hasfurtherreliedupon

[email protected]

AllSCR(Crl.)644tocontendthatwhenchargesheetisfiledandthereis

materialagainsttheaccusedpersons,proceedingsagainstthemcannotbe

quashedwithoutgivingcogentreasons.Reliancehasalsobeenplacedupon

StateofBiharandanotherVersusP.P.SharmaandanotherAIR1991

SupremeCourt1260(1)tocontendthatwhenaftercompletionof

investigationintheFIR,areporthasbeensubmittedbythepolicetothe

Magistrateandaprima-faciecaseismadeoutagainsttheaccused,theHigh

Courtshouldnotinterfereatthisstagewhileexercisingitsinherentpowers

underSection482Cr.PC.Thequashingofcharge-sheetbeforecognizanceis

takenbythecriminalCourtamountstokillingastillbornchild.TheHigh

Courtcannotquashtheproceedingsbytakingintoconsiderationtheaffidavit

anddocumentssubmittedbytheaccusedandtheHighCourtcannotconvert

itselftoatrialCourtinexerciseofitsinherentjurisdiction.

Ihaveheardlearnedcounselfortheparties.

Thepetitionerisanunmarriedsister-in-lawofthecomplainant

andisworkinginGMCH,Sector-32,Chandigarh.Thereportrevealsthat

marriagebetweenthecomplainantandherhusbandwasalove-cum-arranged

marriageasbeforethemarriage,thepartieswereknown/closetoeachother.

TheagedifferencebetweenthecomplainantandherhusbandAbhinavPal

furthersubstantiatesthefactthattheywereknowntoeachothermuchbefore

themarriage.Attherelevanttime,whentheFIRinquestionwasregistered,

7of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-8-

thecomplainantwasnotresidinginChandigarh,rather,shewaspostedas

AssistantProfessorinBawaniKhera,DistrictBhiwani,whereasthepetitioner

nevershiftedtoBawaniKheraandwaslivingatManimajrai.e.inChandigarh

only.

Thereisnoallegationofentrustmentofanydowryarticletothe

petitioner.Thecomplainanthasnamedthepetitioner,whoisherunmarried

sister-in-lawprobablybecauseshewasundertheinfluenceofsome

superstitionsandwasgivingitseffectuponthecomplainant.Thepetitioneris

alreadywell-placedinserviceandwasinnoneedofanyfinancialhelpand,

therefore,itistoounrealistictoallegethatthepetitionereverharassedthe

complainantfordemandofdowry.

TheargumentoflearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2-

complainantthatoncethereporthasbeensubmittedtotheMagistrateanda

prima-faciecaseismadeoutfromtheFIRandcharge-sheetisissued,the

HighCourtshouldnotinterfereatthisstageandquashtheFIRinexerciseof

itsinherentpowers,hasbeenconsideredbytheApexCourtinSatishMehra

VersusStateofN.C.T.ofDelhiandanother2013(2)RCR(Criminal)883

whereintheApexCourthasheldthattheHighCourtinitsinherentpowers

canquashsuchproceedings.TherelevantparagraphNo.15ofthesaid

judgmentreadsasunder:

“15.Thepowertointerdictaproceedingeitheratthe
thresholdoratanintermediatestageofthetrialisinherentina
HighCourtonthebroadprinciplethatincasetheallegations
madeintheFIRorthecriminalcomplaint,asmaybe,prima
faciedonotdiscloseatriableoffencetherecanbereasonasto
whytheaccusedshouldbemadetosuffertheagonyofalegal

8of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-9-

proceedingthatmoreoftenthannotgetsprotracted.A
prosecutionwhichisboundtobecomelameorashamoughtto
interdictedintheinterestofjusticeascontinuancethereofwill
amounttoanabuseoftheprocessofthelaw.Thisisthecore
basisonwhichthepowertointerferewithapendingcriminal
proceedinghasbeenrecognizedtobeinherentineveryHigh
Court.Thepower,thoughavailable,beingextraordinaryin
naturehastobeexercisedsparinglyandonlyiftheattending
factsandcircumstancessatisfiesthenarrowtestindicated
above,namely,thatevenacceptingalltheallegationslevelledby
theprosecution,nooffenceisdisclosed.However,ifso
warranted,suchpowerwouldbeavailableforexercisenotonly
atthethresholdofacriminalproceedingbutalsoatarelatively
advancedstagethereof,namely,afterframingofthecharge
againsttheaccused.Infactthepowertoquashaproceeding
afterframingofchargewouldappeartobesomewhatwideras,
atthatstage,thematerialsrevealedbytheinvestigationcarried
outusuallycomesonrecordandsuchmaterialscanbelooked
into,notforthepurposeofdeterminingtheguiltorinnocenceof
theaccusedbutforthepurposeofdrawingsatisfactionthatsuch
materials,evenifacceptedinitsentirety,donot,inanymanner,
disclosethecommissionoftheoffenceallegedagainstthe
accused.”

Similarly,theApexCourtinGeetaMehrotraandanother

VersusStateofU.P.andanother2012(4)RCR(Criminal)812hasheldthat

incriminalcasesarisingoutofamatrimonialdispute,afactborneoutof

experiencecannotbeoverlookedthatthereisatendencytoinvolvetheentire

familymembersofthehouseholdinthedomesticquarreltakingplaceina

matrimonialdispute.

9of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-10-

Merelybecausethecharge-sheethasbeenframedagainstthe

petitionerisnogroundtodeclinetherelieftothepetitioner.Therearebald

allegationsagainstthepetitionerwhichsuggesttheanxietyoftheinformantto

ropeinasmanyasrelativesofthehusbandaspossible.TheFIRisbasedon

withself-imposedmotivesandwaslodgedagainstthepetitioner,whowas

undisputedlynotlivingwiththecomplainantatBawaniKheraatthetime

whentheFIRwasregisteredand,therefore,thepetitionershouldnotbemade

tosuffertheordealoftrial.Petitionerisunmarriedsister-in-lawofthe

complainantand,iftrialagainstherisallowedtoproceedinthematter,it

shallboundtohaveadverseeffectonhermarriageprospect.

ComingtothefactsofthecasewhenthecontentsoftheFIRare

perused,itisapparentthatthereisnospecificallegationagainstthepetitioner

fordemandofdowryanditshowsthatshehasbeennamed/includedinthe

FIRbutforthereasonthatsheistheunmarriedsisterofhusbandofthe

complainant.InGeetaMehrotraandanother’scase(supra),Hon’ble

SupremeCourt,whilequashingtheFIRagainstthefamilymembersofthe

husbandhasmadefollowingobservationsinparagraphNos.21to24ofthe

judgment:

“21.InyetanothercasereportedinAIR2003SC1386
inthematterofSectionB.S.JoshiOrs.vs.StateofHaryanaAnr.it
wasobservedthatthereisnodoubtthattheobjectofintroducing
ChapterXXAcontainingSection498AinSectiontheIndianPenalCode
wastopreventthetorturetoawomanbyherhusbandorby
relativesofherhusband.Section498Awasaddedwithaviewto
punishthehusbandandhisrelativeswhoharassortorturethe
wifetocoerceherrelativestosatisfyunlawfuldemandsof

10of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-11-

dowry.Butiftheproceedingsareinitiatedbythewifeunder
Section498Aagainstthehusbandandhisrelativesand
subsequentlyshehassettledherdisputeswithherhusbandand
hisrelativesandthewifeandhusbandagreedformutual
divorce,refusaltoexerciseinherentpowersbytheHighCourt
wouldnotbeproperasitwouldpreventwomanfromsettling
earlier.Thusforthepurposeofsecuringtheendsofjustice
quashingofFIRbecomesnecessary,Section320Cr.P.C.would
notbeabartotheexerciseofpowerofquashing.Itwould
howeverbeadifferentmatterdependinguponthefactsand
circumstancesofeachcasewhethertoexerciseornottoexercise
suchapower.

22.Intheinstantmatter,whenthecomplainantandher
husbandaredivorcedasthecomplainant-wifesecuredan
ex-partedecreeofdivorce,thesamecouldhaveweighedwiththe
HighCourttoconsiderwhetherproceedinginitiatedpriortothe
divorcedecreewasfittobepursuedinspiteofabsenceof
specificallegationsatleastagainstthebrotherandsisterofthe
complainant’shusbandandwhethercontinuingwiththis
proceedingcouldnothaveamountedtoabuseoftheprocessof
thecourt.TheHighCourt,however,seemsnottohaveexamined
theseaspectscarefullyandhavethusside-trackedallthese
considerationsmerelyonthegroundthattheterritorial
jurisdictioncouldberaisedonlybeforethemagistrate
conductingthetrial.

23.Intheinstantcase,thequestionofterritorial
jurisdictionwasjustoneofthegroundsforquashingthe
proceedingsalongwiththeothergroundsand,therefore,the
HighCourtshouldhaveexaminedwhethertheprosecutioncase
wasfittobequashedonothergroundsornot.Atthisstage,the
questionalsocropsupwhetherthematterisfittoberemanded
totheHighCourttoconsideralltheseaspects.Butinmatters

11of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-12-

arisingoutofacriminalcase,freshconsiderationbyremanding
thesamewouldfurtherresultintoaprotractedandvexatious
proceedingwhichisunwarrantedaswasheldbythisCourtin
thecaseofSectionRameshvs.StateofTamilNadu(supra)thatsucha
courseofremandwouldbeunnecessaryandinexpedientasthere
wasnoneedtoprolongthecontroversy.Thefactsinthismatter
onthisaspectwasalthoughsomewhatdifferentsincethe
complainanthadlodgedthecomplaintaftersevenyearsofdelay,
yetintheinstantmatterthefactualpositionremainsthatthe
complaintasitstandslacksingredientsconstitutingtheoffence
underSection498AandSection3/Section4DowryProhibitionAct
againsttheappellantswhoaresisterandbrotherofthe
complainant’shusbandandtheirinvolvementinthewhole
incidentappearsonlybywayofacasualinclusionoftheir
names.Hence,itcannotbeoverlookedthatitwouldbetotal
abuseoftheprocessoflawifweweretoremandthematterto
theHighCourttoconsiderwhethertherewerestillanymaterial
toholdthatthetrialshouldproceedagainsttheminspiteof
absenceofprimafaciematerialconstitutingtheoffencealleged
againstthem.

24.However,wedeemitappropriatetoaddbywayof
cautionthatwemaynotbemisunderstoodsoastoinferthat
evenifthereareallegationofovertactindicatingthecomplicity
ofthemembersofthefamilynamedintheFIRinagivencase,
cognizancewouldbeunjustifiedbutwhatwewishtoemphasize
byhighlightingisthat,iftheFIRasitstandsdoesnotdisclose
specificallegationagainstaccusedmoresoagainsttheco-
accusedspeciallyinamatterarisingoutofmatrimonial
bickering,itwouldbeclearabuseofthelegalandjudicial
processtomechanicallysendthenamedaccusedintheFIRto
undergothetrialunlessofcoursetheFIRdisclosesspecific
allegationswhichwouldpersuadethecourttotakecognisance

12of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-13-

oftheoffenceallegedagainsttherelativesofthemainaccused
whoareprimafacienotfoundtohaveindulgedinphysicaland
mentaltortureofthecomplainant-wife.Itisthewellsettled
principlelaiddownincasestoonumeroustomention,thatifthe
FIRdidnotdisclosethecommissionofanoffence,thecourt
wouldbejustifiedinquashingtheproceedingspreventingthe
abuseoftheprocessoflaw.Simultaneously,thecourtsare
expectedtoadoptacautiousapproachinmattersofquashing
speciallyincasesofmatrimonialdisputewhethertheFIRinfact
disclosescommissionofanoffencebytherelativesofthe
principalaccusedortheFIRprimafaciedisclosesacaseof
over-implicationbyinvolvingtheentirefamilyoftheaccusedat
theinstanceofthecomplainant,whoisouttosettleherscores
arisingoutoftheteethingproblemorskirmishofdomestic
bickeringwhilesettlingdowninhernewmatrimonial
surrounding.”

Merelybymakinggeneralallegationsthatthepetitionerwasalso

involvedinphysicalandmentaltortureofrespondentNo.2-complainant,

withoutmentioningevenasingleincidentagainstthepetitionerasalsothe

factastohowshecouldbemotivatedtodemanddowrywhensheisonly

relatedassisterofcomplainant’shusband,thisCourtfindsthatthecriminal

proceedingsinitiatedagainstthepetitionerareliabletobesetasidebeinga

totalabuseofprocessoflaw.

SimilarviewwastakenbyHon’bleSupremeCourtinPreeti

GuptaandanotherVersusStateofJharkhandandanother2010(4)RCR

(Criminal)45,whereinithasbeenheldthatindowryharassmentcases,a

largenumberofcomplaintsarenotbonafideandamajorityofcomplaintsare

13of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-14-

filedonadvicewithexaggeratedversions.TherelevantparagraphsNo.28to

31ofthesaidjudgmentarereproducedasunder:

“28.Itisamatterofcommonknowledgethat
unfortunatelymatrimoniallitigationisrapidlyincreasinginour
country.Allthecourtsinourcountryincludingthiscourtare
floodedwithmatrimonialcases.Thisclearlydemonstrates
discontentandunrestinthefamilylifeofalargenumberof
peopleofthesociety.

29.Thecourtsarereceivingalargenumberofcases
emanatingfromSectionsection498-AoftheIndianPenalCodewhich
readsasunder:

“498-A.Husbandorrelativeofhusbandofawoman
subjectinghertocruelty.–Whoever,beingthe
husbandortherelativeofthehusbandofawoman,
subjectssuchwomantocrueltyshallbepunished
withimprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendto
threeyearsandshallalsobeliabletofine.
Explanation.–Forthepurposesofthissection,
“cruelty’means:

(a)anywilfulconductwhichisofsuchanature
asislikelytodrivethewomantocommitsuicideor
tocausegraveinjuryordangertolife,limbor
health(whethermentalorphysical)ofthewoman;

or

(b)harassmentofthewomanwheresuch
harassmentiswithaviewtocoercingherorany

personrelatedtohertomeetanyunlawfuldemand
foranypropertyorvaluablesecurityorison
accountoffailurebyheroranypersonrelatedto
hertomeetsuchdemand.”

14of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-15-

30.Itisamatterofcommonexperiencethatmostof
thesecomplaintsunderSectionsection498-AIPCarefiledintheheatof
themomentovertrivialissueswithoutproperdeliberations.We
comeacrossalargenumberofsuchcomplaintswhicharenot
evenbonafideandarefiledwithobliquemotive.Atthesame
time,rapidincreaseinthenumberofgenuinecasesofdowry
harassmentarealsoamatterofseriousconcern.

31.ThelearnedmembersoftheBarhaveenormous
socialresponsibilityandobligationtoensurethatthesocialfiber
offamilylifeisnotruinedordemolished.Theymustensurethat
exaggeratedversionsofsmallincidentsshouldnotbereflected
inthecriminalcomplaints.Majorityofthecomplaintsarefiled
eitherontheiradviceorwiththeirconcurrence.Thelearned
membersoftheBarwhobelongtoanobleprofessionmust
maintainitsnobletraditionsandshouldtreateverycomplaint
underSectionsection498-Aasabasichumanproblemandmustmake
seriousendeavourtohelpthepartiesinarrivingatanamicable
resolutionofthathumanproblem.Theymustdischargetheir
dutiestothebestoftheirabilitiestoensurethatsocialfiber,
peaceandtranquilityofthesocietyremainsintact.Themembers
oftheBarshouldalsoensurethatonecomplaintshouldnotlead
tomultiplecases.”

ThejudgmentinSazidKhan’scase(supra)citedbylearned

counselforrespondentNo.2-complainanthasnoapplicabilityinthefactsand

circumstancesofthepresentcaseasthesaidjudgmentrelatestotheoffence

underSections420,Section406andSection120-BIPCaswellasSection138ofthe

NegotiableInstrumentsAct,1881.Similarly,anotherjudgmentcitedby

learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2-complainantinSmt.RavinderKaur’s

case(supra)relatestotheoffenceundertheSectionPreventionofCorruptionAct,

1988.

15of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-16-

ThisCourthasreasontolookintothejudgmentcitedbylearned

counselforrespondentNo.2-complainantinSatishDharmuRathodand

others’case(supra)andfindsthatthesaidcasewasinthebackgroundof

territorialjurisdiction.

ThisCourt,nodoubt,isconsciousofthefactthatitissettled

principleoflawthatforexerciseofinherentpowersunderSection482Cr.PC,

itisessentialtoproceedentirelyonthebasisofallegationsmadeinthe

complaintordocumentsaccompaniedwithitperse,buttheCourthasno

jurisdictiontoexaminethecorrectnessorotherwiseoftheallegations.The

ApexCourtinthematterofStateofHaryanaVersusBhajanlalandothers

AIR1992SC604hasdelineatedtheguidelinesinparagraphNo.109ofthe

judgment,whichreadsasunder:

“109.Wealsogiveanoteofcautiontotheeffectthatthe
powerofquashingacriminalproceedingshouldbeexercised
verysparinglyandwithcircumspectionandthattoointherarest
ofrarecases;thattheCourtwillnotbejustifiedinembarking
uponanenquiryastothereliabilityorgenuinenessorotherwise
oftheallegationsmadeintheF.I.R.orthecomplaintandthat
theextraordinaryorinherentpowersdonotconferanarbitrary
jurisdictionontheCourttoactaccordingtoitswhimor
caprice.”

Butatthesametime,inthecaseinhand,thisCourtfindsthatno

motiveisestablishedonthepartofthepetitionertodemandanydowryandas

observedintheearlierpartofthisjudgment,thecomplainantisprobably

influencedwithasuperstition.Moreover,theFIRinquestionwasregistered

atBawaniKhera,DistrictBhiwani,whereasthepetitioner,whoisunmarried

sister-in-lawofthecomplainant,isresidinginChandigarhandisworkingin

16of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::
CRM-M-4790of2016-17-

GMCH,Sector-32,Chandigarh.Atnopointoftime,petitionereverstayedin

BawaniKhera.

Therefore,havingrecoursetotheprovisionsofSection482

Cr.P.C.,thisCourtfindsthatregistrationoftheFIRagainstthepetitionerisa

totalmisuseoftheprocessoflawonthepartofthecomplainant.

Accordingly,thepresentpetitionisallowedandtheFIRNo.39

dated23.10.2015underSections498-A,Section323,Section506andSection406readwithSection

34IPCaswellasSection3oftheSC/SectionSTActregisteredatWomenPolice

Station,Bhiwaniandallconsequentialproceedingsarisingtherefromquathe

petitionerarequashed.

(HARIPALVERMA)
May10,2019JUDGE
YagDutt

Whetherspeaking/reasoned:Yes

WhetherReportable:No

17of17
09-06-201910:18:56:::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation