Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 1239
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.K. Srivastava, J.
Kiran - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6805-M of 1994.
Decided On : 29 September, 1998
For the Petitioners:Mr. Vipen Kumar Bali, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Surinder Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate.
The court held that a First Information Report (FIR) must contain specific allegations against the accused persons to establish their involvement in the offenses charged, and that general or improbable allegations are insufficient to sustain a criminal prosecution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 406, 498-A IPC - DOWRY DEMAND - HARASSMENT - TORTURE - MINOR SISTER-IN-LAW - NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS - NO INVOLVEMENT - FIR QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Kiran, Parveen Kumar, and Anil Kumar, sought to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty, dowry demand, and harassment of the complainant, Pinki Rani, wife of Pawan Kumar, brother of the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the FIR did not disclose any specific allegations against them regarding the entrustment of dowry items, demand of dowry, or harassment of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against petitioner No. 1, Kiran, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses, were inherently improbable and that there were no specific allegations of her involvement in the offenses. The court also found that the allegations against petitioner No. 2, Parveen Kumar, were general and did not establish his involvement in the offenses. However, the court found that there were prima facie allegations against petitioner No. 3, Anil Kumar, for demanding dowry and threatening the complainant's father.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR disclosed specific allegations against the petitioners regarding the entrustment of dowry items, demand of dowry, or harassment of the complainant? 2. Whether the allegations against petitioner No. 1, Kiran, were inherently improbable and lacked specificity? 3. Whether the allegations against petitioner No. 2, Parveen Kumar, were general and did not establish his involvement in the offenses? 4. Whether there were prima facie allegations against petitioner No. 3, Anil Kumar, for demanding dowry and threatening the complainant's father?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR did not disclose specific allegations against the petitioners regarding the entrustment of dowry items, demand of dowry, or harassment of the complainant. 2. The court found that the allegations against petitioner No. 1, Kiran, were inherently improbable and lacked specificity, considering her young age at the time of the alleged offenses. 3. The court held that the allegations against petitioner No. 2, Parveen Kumar, were general and did not establish his involvement in the offenses. 4. The court found that there were prima facie allegations against petitioner No. 3, Anil Kumar, for demanding dowry and threatening the complainant's father.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against petitioners No. 1 and 2, Kiran and Parveen Kumar, due to the lack of specific allegations and inherent improbability of their involvement. However, the court dismissed the petition as it lacked merit with respect to petitioner No. 3, Anil Kumar, as there were prima facie allegations against him.
K.K. Srivastava, J. - Petitioners, Kiran daughter of Mange Ram, Parveen Kumar and Anil Kumar sons of Mansa Ram, all residents of B.III-A, Ram Nagar Om Vihar Uttam Nagar, Nazafgarh, New Delhi, seek the quashing of First Information Report No. 63 dated 28.2.1994 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code registered at police Station Gharaunda District Karnal and subsequent proceedings flowing therefrom and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal.
2. Respondent No. 2 Pinki Rani was married with Pawan Kumar at Gharaunda District Karnal on 13.6.1991. The marriage was duly consummated and a female child, namely, Ritikka was born out of this wedlock at Delhi on 29.9.1992. The petitioners are the sister and brothers of Pawan Kumar aforesaid. Respondent No. 2 wife Pinki Rani daughter of Shri Hari Chand, Resident of Gharaunda, lodged the First Information Report aforesaid on the allegations inter alia that the behaviour of the accused since the date of marriage was cruel. Accused-husband Pawan Kumar even refused to join the company of the complainant-wife Pinki Rani for a few days as he was greatly dissatisfied by the dowry given at the time of marriage. The complainant-respondent No. 2 Pinki Rani alleged that her parents had spent a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on the marriage and even that amount was beyond the capacity/means of her parents. The articles which were given in dowry, mentioned in the list were handed over to accused No. 1 Pawan Kumar, his father Mansa-Ram accused No. 4, and his mother Smt. Prito wife of Mansa Ram, accused No. 5 in the presence of witnesses including Ramesh Kumar son of Geeta Ram, Rattan Lal son of Prabhu Ram, Siri Chand son of Daya Ram and other relatives who were present at the time of marriage of the complainant-respondent No. 2. The complainant-wife Pinki Rani behaved sensibly thinking that better days may come and she tried to compromise with the circumstances and the behaviour of the acuseed persons. It is alleged that the behaviour of the accused, however, became still unbearable and worse. On 28.4.1992 accused-husband Pawan Kumar and his father Mansa Ram came to Gharaunda and left the respondent No. 2 complainant Pinki Rani at the house of her parents saying that until their demand of Rs. 10,000/- in cash was met and the amount is paid to them, they will not take the respondent No. 2-Pinki Rani with them to their house at Delhi. The parents of Pinki Rani made a request to Mansa Ram and his son Pawan Kumar that they should keep their daughter Pinki Rani with them and assured them they would make arrangement for the amount demanded and pay the same to them within a couple of days. It is alleged that on 2.5.1992 Ved Parkash-brother withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from his bank account and paid the same to Smt. Pritomother-in-law of Pinki Rani. It is alleged that at the time of the payment, accused No. 3, namely, Anil Kumar, who is petitioner No. 3 in this petition, was present. Further contention of the complainant was that the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to her husband and her parents-in-law did not satisfy them and their behaviour did not improve. Respondent-Pinki Rani was used to be beaten by her mother-in-law, petitioner No. 1-Miss Kiran along with petitioner No. 2-Anil Kumar on trifling matters. A Panchayat was convened by the father of the complainant- Pinki Rani at Safidon, which comprised of the relations of the accused and of the complainant-wife. In this Panchayat, the relations of Pinki Rani requested the accused persons to behave properly with Pinki Rani and the accused in turn promised that they will behave properly with the complainant and will not demand dowry in future. However, this proved to be a false promise as on 10.2.1993 petitioner No. 3-Anil Kumar accompanied by husband- Pawan Kumar came to Gharaunda and left the complainant Pinki Rani in two plain clothes at the house of her parents and at that time raised a further demand of payment of Rs. 20,000/- in ord
