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
JebaTabassumVersusMd.KhalilAhmed@M.K.Ahmedandothers2018
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
whytheaccusedshouldbemadetosuffertheagonyofalegal8of17
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
wifetocoerceherrelativestosatisfyunlawfuldemandsof10of17
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.Butinmatters11of17
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
allegationswhichwouldpersuadethecourttotakecognisance12of17
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:::