The Court quashed criminal proceedings against two women implicated in an FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty under various IPC sections, finding no specific allegations or material evidence against them beyond general family involvement in marriage disputes.
FIR No.78 and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1784 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 07, 2008
Bimla & Another
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
The State of Haryana & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed at the instance of Bimla wife of Satpal @ Pala i.e. mother-in-law of respondent No.2-complainant, Mamta Rani, and Geeta wife of Jagat Singh i.e. paternal aunt of the husband of complainant.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners have
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [2]
been implicated for no legal reason. There is no evidence so as to implicate the petitioners. There is neither any specific allegation against the petitioners nor any material so as to show that they had demanded dowry or had committed the offences as alleged i.e. under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2complainant has contended that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR and there are allegations in the FIR that the accused had taken and accepted dowry and other articles as given by the family of the complainant as per their status.
I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Striking feature in the FIR is the repeated averments at the instance of the complainant to the effect that:-
“….. There the marriage consummation remained unsatisfactory on the very first night. I stayed there for one night only at my first visit.
…. I stayed at village Khanda for seven days and on account of this non payment I was not properly respected and I found my husband to be fully unable to consummate the marriage during my seven days stay there with him at village Khanda. It created doubt in my mind for husband’s impotency.
….. My husband had not even been able to enjoy and consummate marriage satisfactorily with me. His impotency factor always encroached upon my mind and once on 16.12.2006, I happened to utter it to my husband and to my mother in law Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Geeta. My spell for my husband’s impotency annoyed all the accused and they again beat me more and more and thrown me out of their house forcibly only in three cloths putted me into a car and the accused no.1,2 and 3 accused had also set in to the car which was driven to Narwana and after some time these accused thrown me out of the car at Narwana minor canal pool at Jind Narwana road, near Subhash Nagar, Narwana…..
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [3]
”
So far as the allegations of giving and accepting dowry are concerned, it has been stated in the FIR that parents and maternal uncle of the complainant had given sufficient dowry and other articles according to the status of the family and the same were handed over to the accused persons on different ceremonial occasions. All these were taken and accepted by the accused persons and were taken to their home which are being held by them and still in their possession.
The claim made in the FIR is also with regard to the money spent for engaging vehicles at the time of marriage, video filming, purchase of sweets & food etc., for the marriage party, making arrangements for stay of marriage party in a hotel etc., besides the articles mentioned in the FIR including cash, gold, clothing, utensils of Brass, suits etc. However, there is no averment in the lengthy document (FIR) with regard to specific entrustment of any article to either of the petitioners or the demand made for an article from either of the petitioners.
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State also, no material has been pointed out so as to indicate specific involvement of the petitioners in demand of dowry or entrustment of dowry articles.
I also find that a complaint was made to the Magistrate concerned with a prayer to refer the
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [4]
same for registration of FIR under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been mentioned in the complaint that an application was moved before the police but no action had been taken. It seems that the police prima facie before receiving orders from the Court did not find commission of any offence. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that FIR has been lodged at the instance of the complainant for the reasons that the marriage could not be consummated on account of alleged impotency of the husband. The women folk of the family of the husband have been implicated so as to harass them. In these circumstances, without there being any specific allegation against the petitioners or any material specifically implicating the petitioners which can be translated into evidence, the petitioners cannot be asked to stand trial. Continuance of trial, in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case would result in abuse of process of Court. The criminal Court process cannot be allowed to be used to settle score of the complainant after it has been found that there is no relevant material showing even prima facie commission of offences by the petitioners.
Geeta, petitioner No.2, is the paternal aunt of the husband. For the conduct of the husband, of the nature as alleged, the lady surely cannot be held responsible. Even if all the allegations are taken to be true, no offence is found to have been committed by the petitioners.
In view of the above, the petition is
Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2008 [5]
allowed.
FIR No.78 dated 20.3.2007 lodged under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 and 34 IPC with Police Station, City, Narwana and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
(AJAI LAMBA) August 07, 2008 JUDGE avin
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners could be asked to stand trial in the absence of specific allegations or material implicating them in dowry demands.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against them in these circumstances would result in abuse of the process of the court.
Whether the paternal aunt of the husband can be held responsible for the alleged conduct of the husband.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bimla & Another
The State of Haryana & Another
Ajai Lamba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
