SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(P&H) 327

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Jasvinder Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 6611 of 1993,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 17, 1997

The court has the power to quash a complaint if the allegations are vague and general and if the prosecution of the accused would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - DOWRY DEMAND AND CRUELTY - COMPLAINT AGAINST MEMBERS OF HUSBAND'S FAMILY - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT AGAINST CERTAIN ACCUSED - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, and others, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of a complaint filed by Smt. Simarjit Kaur under Sections 406, 498-A, 34, 506, 114, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, including her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, jethani, and sister-in-law, demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the allegations in the complaint were vague and general and that the petitioner, Mohinder Kaur, who was the married daughter of the father-in-law, could not have been involved in the alleged demand for dowry and cruelty. The court also noted that the petitioner, Smt. Simarjit Kaur, had implicated several members of the husband's family without specifying their involvement in the alleged offenses.

Issues: 1. Whether the complaint against the petitioners was maintainable? 2. Whether the allegations in the complaint were vague and general? 3. Whether the petitioner, Mohinder Kaur, could be held liable for the alleged offenses?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint against the petitioners was not maintainable as the allegations were vague and general and that the petitioner, Mohinder Kaur, could not be held liable for the alleged offenses. The court relied on the principle that the court has to visualize every situation creeping in so that no one is harassed through the process of criminal trial.

Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint against the petitioners, Jaswant Singh, Darshan Singh, Sewa Singh, Gurdip Kaur, and Mohinder Kaur, and the summoning order issued against them.

Judgment

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. This is a criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Jaswinder Singh, son of Tarlok Singh and others seeking the quashing of complaint Annexure P.1 titled Smt. Simarjit Kaur v. Jaswinder Singh and others under Sections 406, 498-A, 34, 506, 114 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They have also prayed for quashing of the order Annexure P.2 whereby they have been summoned for their trial by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code lie in narrow compass:

3. Smt. Simarjit Kaur was married to Jaswinder Singh accused on 21.4.1991 at Karnal. Tarlok Singh is her father-in-law. Inder Kaur is her mother-in-law. Jaswant Singh, Darshan Singh and Sewa Singh are her brothers-in-law i.e. husbands brothers. Smt. Gurdip Kaur is her jethani. Mohinder Kaur is her sister-in-law i.e. sister of her husband. According to Smt. Simarjit Kaur, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, jethani and husband constituted joint family sharing the same roof and are joint in mess and other family affairs. All of them are putting up in House No. 404, New Ram Nagar, Karnal. Although Smt. Mohinder Kaur is the married daughter of her father-in-law Tarlok Singh, she is frequent visitor to the house of her parents and is residing just adjacent to her parents house. At the time of shagun ceremony and also at the time of marriage her parents/friends/relatives gave adequate dowry to them in cash as well as in kind. Dowry given by her parents/friends/relatives to them was her stridhan. She attached annexures to the complaint in which the details of the articles of dowry given at the time of shagun ceremony and at the time of the marriage were given. Articles of dowry were packed in attache case, iron box and other packings. They were locked in the presence of the accused persons. Relations and friends of the parties were also present. Keys of the attache case, iron box and other packings were handed over to her father-in-law and mother-in-law in the presence of the aforesaid persons. List of articles given was also prepared which was handed over to her father-in-law and mother-in-law at the time of her marriage between her and Jaswinder Singh. Ever since marriage they were not satisfied with the dowry taken by her for them. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law and others treated her with cruelty. They hurled taunts on her. They harassed her and tortured her so that she felt coerced to satisfy their lust for dowry. Her husband used to beat her at the instigation of his father, mother etc. She was maltreated. She was denied food, clothing, medicines etc. She was given blows with rod, stick etc. by her husband at the instigation of his father, mother etc. When she protested against the denial of food, clothing, medicines etc. to her, she was administered dettol solution by her husband together with his father, mother etc. She was saved by the timely intervention of her parents. Her parents sought intervention of Kewal Krishan, son of Hukam Rai, Amarjit Singh, son of Bal Singh and Gurdeep Singh etc. in September, 1991 and protested with the accused against the maltreatment being given to her by them. Accused blurted that in case she was interested in settling his daughter in the matrimonial home he should give Rs. one lac so that Jaswinder Singh could purchase a truck. They demanded VCR, air conditioner etc. They threatened that if their demand was not met she would be eliminated. Her father agreed to give them cash to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- so that his daughter could have happy and smooth life in the matrimonial home. With that object in view he gave Rs. 15,000/- to Jaswinder Singh in the presence of his father, mother etc. and also in the presence of members of the panchayat. After receiving an amount of Rs. 15,000/- all the accused assured them that they would not lay any demand in future and they would se







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top