Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3009
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Virender Singh, J.
Divya Alias Babli
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24923 of 2004,
Decided On : JULY 26, 2006
The court suggests that Section 498-A IPC should be made a non-cognizable and bailable offence to prevent misuse.
Headnote:
IPC - Sections 498-A/406 - The court examines the allegations of dowry harassment and misappropriation of dowry articles against the petitioners. It considers the evidence presented and concludes that some of the petitioners have no case against them, while others should face trial. The court also suggests that Section 498-A IPC should be made a non-cognizable and bailable offence to prevent misuse.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners and her husband under Sections 498-A/406 IPC alleging dowry harassment. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings. The complainant alleges that her in-laws concealed the fact that her husband was previously married and misbehaved with her physically and mentally. The petitioners argue that there was no dowry given or accepted at the time of marriage and that the complainant stayed in the matrimonial home without any issues for some time. They also claim that a Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the couple. The complainant's side argues that the petitioners have specific allegations against them and that the dowry articles have not been returned. The court examines the allegations against each petitioner and concludes that some of them have no case against them and deserve to have the FIR quashed, while others should face trial. The court also notes that there is a tendency to implicate all family members in dowry cases and suggests that Section 498-A IPC should be made a non-cognizable and bailable offence to prevent misuse.
Finding of the Court:
The court considers the allegations against each petitioner and the evidence presented. It also takes into account the prevailing trend of implicating all family members in dowry cases. The court concludes that some of the petitioners have no case against them and deserve to have the FIR quashed, while others should face trial. The court also suggests that Section 498-A IPC should be made a non-cognizable and bailable offence to prevent misuse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court quashes the FIR against some of the petitioners as they have no case against them. However, it allows the trial to proceed against others. The court also suggests that Section 498-A IPC should be made a non-cognizable and bailable offence to prevent misuse.
Result: The court partly allows the petition and quashes the FIR against some of the petitioners. However, it orders that the trial should proceed against others. The personal appearance exemption for one of the petitioners is withdrawn.
Virender Singh, J.
1. Veena respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the present seven petitioners as well as her husband Sanjay Kumar (non-petitioner) under Sections 498-A/406 IPC before the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Panipat with a request that the same be sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station for registration of the case alleging therein that she got married to Sanjay on 28th of June, 1999 at Samalkha, District Panipat and in the marriage her parents had spent about Rs. 2.00 lacs. She also alleges that certain dowry articles (as shown in the annexure) were entrusted to her in-laws. It is her case that her in-laws had played a fraud upon her by concealing the fact that Sanjay Kumar was earlier married and the said marriage was broken after litigation. She stayed in her matrimonial home for about 16 months i.e. 28.6.1999 to 18.11.2000 and during this period her in-laws misbehaved with her physically and mentally. Petitioner No. 3 who is son of real brother of mother of Sanjay (Mama) and Daya Kishan petitioner No. 4 who is member panchayat used to instigate the other family members of her in-laws to maltreat her with regard to bringing insufficient dowry. At one stage a sum of Rs. 27,000/- was given to petitioner No. 1 for purchase of scooter but the same was not purchased. Ultimately, on 18.11.2000 she was turned out of the matrimonial home. It is then alleged that despite the intervention of brotherhood, her in-laws had refused to hand over the dowry articles. Rather frivolous and false allegations were levelled against the complainant. On these allegations the complainant is primarily seeking conviction of the present petitioners and her husband Sanjay.
2. On the direction of the concerned Court (Ilaqa Magistrate), FIR No. 253 dated 2nd of September, 2002 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/406 IPC.
3. The petitioners herein are seeking quashing of the said FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua them.
4. Pursuant to notice, both the respondents filed their respective replies.
5. The order dated July 22, 2004 reflects that personal appearance of the petitioners was exempted and they were permitted to appear before the trial Court through their counsel.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
7. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact respondent No. 2 and Sanjay Kumar had solemnised Kareva ceremony on 26.6.1999 in a very simple manner as both were divorcees and no dowry articles was given or accepted at the time of marriage. He then submits that respondent No. 2 stayed in the house of her in-laws for about 1-1/2 years without any bickering. Thereafter, at one stage it was detected that she was suffering from some gynecological problem for which she could not conceive and this resulted in differences between husband and wife. Ultimately the matter went to a Panchayat of respectables. Panchayat was convened in a temple on 7.7.2002 wherein it was amicably settled that the father of respondent No. 2 would get her daughter (respondent No. 1) treated for her gynecological problem. A date was also fixed by the Panchayat i.e. 12.7.2002. The father of respondent No. 2 had attended the Panchayat on 7.7.2002 whereas on 12th of July, 2002 he was absent. Mr. Saini states that although he has not attached the writing of the meeting held on the aforesaid two dates and even respondent No. 2 in her reply has admitted the factum of convening of Panchayat at least on one date i.e. 12.7.2002 and therefore, he prays that in the interest of justice, the petitioners may be allowed to place on record the writing of the aforesaid two Panchayats to arrive at the just conclusion of the case. He has produced the said writing today in the Court (be tagged at its proper place).
8. Mr. Verma appearing for respondent No. 2 after perusing the reply states that may be the respondent wife has admitted the
