Dismissed

Arvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2024CRM-A/80/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal in a dowry and cruelty case. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the ingredients of Section 406 IPC due to lack of demand and refusal evidence, and noted a significant six-year delay in filing the original complaint after leaving the matrimonial home.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arvinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

219 Date of order: 01.08.2024

¶4

CRM-A-80-MA-2016(O&M)

¶5

Arvinder Kaur

¶6

…..Applicant/Appellant(s)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab & Another

¶9

…..Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Adv o cate for the applicant/appella n t.

¶12

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, A A G Punjab.

¶13

None for respondent No. 2

¶14

¶15

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶16

Present application und e r Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is file d

¶17

seeking leav e to file appeal against judgm e nt dated 16.09.2015 passed b y the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Cla s s, Amritsar, vide which th e respondent N o.2 has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 498 - A and 406 IP C in Criminal Complaint No.343 of 2000.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant assails th e impugned o r der on the ground that in passing the impugned order, th e learned trial Court has failed to appreciate t h at right at the of the beginnin g of the marri a ge, the behavior of responde n t No.2 and his family member s towards the applicant was harsh and cruel. Respondent No.2 is a habitual

¶19

drunkard an d used to subject the applicant to mental and physical tortur e

¶20

SUNENA 2024.08.06 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

under the in f luence of liquor. On 12.12.199 4 , the applicant was turned ou t of the matri m onial house after being given severe beatings by responden t No.2 at the instigation of his family memb e rs. Though the applicant trie d desperately t o reconcile the matter with respondent No.2, however, to n o avail. Her pleas fell on deaf ears. Further m ore, respondent No.2 and hi s family mem b ers were not content with the d owry articles which were give n to them an d continuously raised illegal d e mands of more dowry article s and money f rom the applicant and her fam i ly. When the applicant showed her inability to fulfill their demands, she was given severe beatings b y respondent N o.2 and his family members. 3. It is further contended t h at the learned trial Court is i n error in disc a rding the cogent evidence led b y the applicant as CW1 and he r brother Dal w inder Singh as CW2. It is cont e nded that as per the oral an d documentar y evidence brought on record by the applicant, the offence s under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are prov e d against respondent No.2. It i s proved on r e cord that respondent No.2 mis a ppropriated the dowry articles. It has also b een proved that there was demand of dowry and that th e applicant w a s severely beaten on numb e r of occasions and was als o subjected t o cruelty. However, the lear n ed trial Court has failed t o appreciate t h ese facts and evidence brought on record by the applicant. In doing so, the learned trial Court has n ot properly appreciated th e statement o f the complainant and has wro n gly given respondent No.2 th e benefit of d o ubt.

¶23

4. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the applicant.

¶24

SUNENA 2024.08.06 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

5. I have heard learned c ounsel for the applicant and

¶27

perused the case file in great detail.

¶28

6. Brief facts of the case ar e that the applicant was marrie d to responde n t No.2 on 05.05.1993. No chil d was born out of their wedlock . It is case o f the applicant herself that she was turned out of th e matrimonial home on 12.12.1994. Howev e r, the present complaint unde r Sections 40 6 and 498-A IPC was filed by the applicant almost 6 year s thereafter, o n 31.10.2000. There is no explanation whatsoever given by th e applicant as to why there is such an inordin a te delay in filing of the presen t complaint. A s such, the allegations of the a p plicant cast a shadow of doub t on this grou n d itself.

¶29

7. As regards the allegation under Section 406 IPC, it i s admitted by the applicant that she has no list of dowry articles. It has bee n sought to b e argued on behalf of the appli c ant that the articles mentione d in Para 15 o f the impugned order, such as double bed, steel almirah , Dunlop mattress, woolen bedding, one dinner set, one mixy, one picnic set , one pressur e cooker, 5 bed sheets, 8 suits along with turbans i.e. pants an d shirts, etc. e t c., comprises the list of dowry a rticles as required as per law. I t was further argued that it has been ment i oned at page 34 of the pape r book (Para 1 5 of the impugned order) tha t “..The accused received thes e articles by w ay of entrustment on the assur a nce that they would hand ove r the same t o complainant at her matri m onial home…”. It has bee n contended t h at this constitutes entrustmen t as per law.

¶30

SUNENA 2024.08.06 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

8. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of th e applicant. I n order to establish an offenc e under Section 406 IPC, thre e ingredients a re necessary i.e. a) istridhan of the bride be entrusted to th e accused, up o n which the same is misappropriated by the accused; b) tha t the wife ma k es a demand from the accuse d that the said misappropriate d istridhan be returned to her; and c) lastly t h at there is a refusal on part o f the accused to return the said articles o f istridhan to the wife. In th e present cas e , there is nothing on record to suggest when the said article s were demanded back by the applicant. The o nly plea taken by the applican t is that “ she has not been allowed to use the istridhan till she remaine d there/matri m onial home ”. Needless to say, t he above said allegation of th e applicant do e s not meet the three mandato r y requirements to make out a n offence und e r Section 406 IPC.

¶33

9. As regards the allegation s of the applicant under Sectio n 498-A IPC, i t has been alleged that she wa s severely beaten on numerou s occasions. However, admittedly no compl a int was filed by the applicant. Even there i s no MLR on record. Relevant fi n dings returned by learned tria l Court are as follows: -

¶34

“23…..Moreover, it is a case of c omplainant herself that she lef t the company of accused on 12. 1 2.1994 and filed this complain t on 31.10.2000 and she was r esiding at her parental hom e during this period. There is also nothing on record to show tha t she ever got herself medically examined qua her any of th e beatings allegedly given by th e accused during the period fo r which she was residing with her husband (accused Harji t

¶35

SUNENA 2024.08.06 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶36

Page 5 of 5

¶37

Singh). Moreover, there was no criminal complaint ever filed b y complainant against the accus e d on the similar grounds earlie r ever. Per Contra, the version o f the accused in his defence i s that he had obtained divorce r e garding this marriage, from th e court of Sh. P.S. Bajaj, the th e n Ld. Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated; 17. 0 3.1999 and this complaint wa s nothing else but the counter bl a st of the said decree of divorce. This fact is not disputed by co m plainant that the said decree o f divorce was passed against her on 17.03.1999….”.

¶38

Admittedly, the said de c ree of divorce was granted t o respondent N o.2 on the finding that the ap p licant had deserted responden t No.2 on 12. 1 2.1994 without any sufficient c ause. Admittedly too, the sai d decree of di v orce has been upheld by this C o urt.

¶39

Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to disput e

¶40

the above said facts and findings.

¶41

12. A ccordingly, I find no gr o und is made out that calls fo r interference in the impugned order. As s u ch, the present application i s

¶42

dismissed.

¶43

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶44

01.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶45

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶46

Yes/No Yes/No

¶47

SUNENA 2024.08.06 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Arvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sompal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arun Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurjant Singh Vs Paramjit Kaur

Harsh Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Another

Konnal Bhatti Vs Poonam Konnal Bhati

Poonam Konaal Bhatti Vs Konaal Bhatti and Another