Petitioner brother-in-law sought quashing of FIR under domestic violence laws. Court distinguished cited precedents due to specific allegations of harassment against the unmarried petitioner. Dismissed petition finding no merit.
Petition for quashing the FIR is dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-25472 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-25472 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 11th , 2013
Jitender
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Jitender, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 241 dated 2.7.2012 registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P1) for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (devar) of Archana, respondent No.2. According to him, she has involved her husband, parents-in-law and the petitioner in the case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has
Crl. Misc. No.M-25472 of 2012
2
been a student and has now been appointed as Administrative Officer with Indian Oil Corporation on 3.6.2012. According to him, respondent No. 2 stayed at her matrimonial home with her parents-in-law for one year and thereafter shifted to Delhi as her husband has been a Constable with Delhi police. According to him, Archana made a complaint to D.C.P. of the area against her husband and she has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner. In this regard, he has referred to Annexure P2, a copy of the complaint made by Archana, respondent No.2 to the D.C.P. (Outer District), Delhi. He has further submitted that there is no allegation of any entrustment of dowry articles and, therefore, no offence under section 498-A IPC is made out. He has placed reliance on a number of decisions in this case. The first is a decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812 , where the tendency to implicate the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute is noticed. He has cited other three decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Mohinder Kaur & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 597, Ram Sarup Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1835 and Smt. Preeti Bulagan and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 775.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner had been a student only at the time of alleged harassment of Archana by her
Crl. Misc. No.M-25472 of 2012 3
in-laws and he was in a position to harass her. He has further submitted that the complaint to D.C.P., Delhi was not required to refer to the petitioner because the petitioner was not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the DCP.
A piece of legislation which has its use is also found to be misused at times. The provision of section 498-A IPC was enacted to come to the rescue of harassed woman, but it is seen that it is now being misused by involving the entire family members on the side of the husband. So, there is no gainsaying that the courts have to watch the matter strictly to find out if some persons have been involved falsely to harass the husband and his family members with whom the woman could not pull on well.
There is specific allegation against the petitioner. It is said in the FIR that he had beaten respondent no. 2 and to have caught hold of her by her hands and pushed her out of the house telling her that there was no need of her in the house. Other allegations are also there in this regard.
The number of the accused in this case is only 4. Husband and parents-in-law are normally responsible for the miseries suffered by a wife at her matrimonial home. The only person, apart from them, in this case is the brother-in-law (devar) who was unmarried at the time of occurrence and had all the opportunities to harass respondent No. 2. It is not a case that he was living away from respondent No. 2 and had no occasion to harass her.
General proposition is laid down in Geeta Mehrotra's case
Crl. Misc. No.M-25472 of 2012
4
(supra). The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners of Coordinate Benches of this court are all distinguishable on facts. In Mohinder Kaur's case (supra), the allegation was that the wife was not allowed to live in her matrimonial home after she gave birth to a girl. In Ram Sarup's case (supra) petitioner No. 3 was not found to be involved. Petitioner No. 3 was married with petitioner No. 2 about 5 years after the marriage of the complainant with the son of petitioner No.1 and there could be no reason for saying that any dowry articles were entrusted to petitioner No.3. In Smt. Preeti Bulagan's case (supra), the petitioners were the married sisters-in-law and the case was certainly distinguishable from the case of the unmarried devar who is the petitioner in the case before me.
The complainant made a complaint to the D.C.P., (Outer District), Delhi because under him, her husband was working. Though, she has also referred to the parents of her husband therein, yet she was not supposed or expected to have made out a grievance against the petitioner who was in no way under the control of the D.C.P., Delhi.
Keeping in view the specific allegations against the petitioner of having harassed the complainant, I find no merit in the petition and consequently, dismiss the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
January 11th , 2013 som
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR against the petitioner brother-in-law should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given the lack of specific allegations in the initial complaint.
Whether the petitioner, an unmarried brother-in-law, can be implicated in a domestic dispute where specific allegations of harassment exist against him.
Whether the cited coordinate bench decisions are distinguishable from the present case involving an unmarried devar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.Distinguished¶17
Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 812
Mohinder Kaur & Others Vs. State of Punjab & AnotherDistinguished¶30
Mohinder Kaur & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 597
Ram Sarup Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶30
Ram Sarup Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1835
Smt. Preeti Bulagan and another Vs. State of Haryana and anotherDistinguished¶30
Smt. Preeti Bulagan and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 775
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jitender
State of Haryana
Archana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
