Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1857
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
SALIL CHADHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH – Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. M-5244 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided on : 25-05-2018
For the Appellant :Ms. Tanu Bedi and Vibhu Agnihotri, Advocates
For the Respondent:J.S. Toor, APP, U.T., Chandigarh, Counsel, L.S. Chahal, Advocate
Cruelty to Wife--Case had been registered on trivial issues and not related to dowry demand--FIR quashed
Cruelty to Wife--Not every kind of cruelty falls within scope of Section 498-A IPC.
Cruelty to Wife--Allegation that husband was addicted to gambling, did not give her money, left home and took daughter away would not fall within frame work of Section 498-A IPC
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Cruelty to Wife--Quashing--First two complaints do not disclose any allegations therefore, police did not take cognizance of them--Third statement made by complainant to bring case within four corners of Section 498-A of IPC--The case had been registered on trivial issues--FIR quashed--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. (Para 18)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Cruelty to Wife--Forcible Abortion--Document on record which does not refer to any complaint or forced MTP--Complainant was 20 years old then and was studying--Complainant failed to give any explanation as to why no complaint was made earlier and why after 19 years of marriage, complainant has referred to incident of abortion--OPD card of 1991 refer to head injury but it also speaks about fall during clash--No offence u/s 498-A IPC made out. (Para 24)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Cruelty to Wife--Injury on Neck--Complainant did not elaborate about incident when she suffered injury on neck--No accusation were made against husband that he had poured hot water on her neck--It appears to be accident--Main grievance was that husband failed to get her treated--No evidence for which petitioner should be asked to face trial--Legitimate prosecution as it is not every kind of cruelty which falls within scope of Section 498-A IPC. (Para 25)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Cruelty to Wife--Under Section 498-A IPC harassment or mental torture should be a willful conduct which drives a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life and where harassment is with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of a property or a valuable security on account of failure, by her or any person related to her, to meet such demand--Held; allegations of demand of dowry are not there--Thus, Clause (a) of Section 498 not applicable--Further, no demand of dowry nor allegations that harassment was to meet a unlawful demand, therefore, case did not and could not fall under Section 498-A IPC--No allegation of physical or mental torture after 1998--Moreover, it is delayed and Section 468 Cr.P.C. would come into play. (Para 27)
(E) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Cruelty to Wife--Dowry Demand--Quashing--None of witnesses examined by police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. speak about cruelty related to demand of dowry--Complaint to police was used as a weapon to threaten and coerce husband to live with complainant--Allegation that husband was addicted to gambling, did not give her money, left home and took daughter away would not fall within frame work of Section 498-A IPC--Harassment must be to compel wife to fulfil illegal demands--But no such allegations case had been registered on trivial issues--FIR quashed--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. (Para 28)
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 26.04.2007, registered under Section 498-A IPC and Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-4) lodged at the instance of respondent no.2.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition as recapitulated by the petitioner is being delineated. The petitioner was married to Priya Chadha on 29.05.1988. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant. At the time of marriage respondent no.2 was a student in Home Science College, Chandigarh. The couple was blessed with two daughters. The eldest was 16 years old at the time of filing of the petition. The younger one was 12 years old. Respondent no.2 after completing her graduation in Home Science did her Post Graduation in Nutrition and Dietetics, besides post graduation and Mass Communication from Punjab University and Kurukshetra University respectively after marriage. All went well for next 10 years. The petitioner claims that the wife along with two daughters left his company in early 1997. He filed an application under the Guardian and Wards Act, firstly at Gurdaspur which was not entertained for want of jurisdiction and then in the Guardian Court at Panchkula. Interim custody of the elder child was given to him. The reason disclosed was that the child was constantly absent from school and the school had threatened to strike off her name. A revision was preferred against the interim order in the High Court in 1998. An amicable settlement took place. The agreement bound both the sides and a judicial order was passed. The terms and conditions were made part of the interim order dated 20.02.1998, which was subsequently made absolute on 10.08.1998. Both the parties agreed to bury their differences and withdraw all allegations against each other in order to save the matrimonial home. The petitioner claims that the family lived together in a house at Sector 16, Chandigarh but due to the reprehensive behaviour of respondent no.2 and verbal abuses in front of the servants and neighbours he was forced to leave the house in September 2006 after being together for 8 years. It was pleaded that he had never abdicated his duties nor shirked his duties and never left his family in any financial lurch. Though respondent no.2 had never worked till December 2006, there was enough money in her bank account by way of FDRs, deposits in post office and a personal car whose installments he was paying. It was pleaded that the petitioner moved out of the house and respondent no.2 broke open the locks of his room and destroyed his official documents, certificates, expensive heirlooms and artifacts. It was pleaded that the High Court had directed in its order of 1998 that his room would remain locked and the order was violated. It was pleaded that the petitioner all throughout had been supporting the family of respondent no.2 which was not financially sound as the sole male earning member of the family i.e. her brother had been dismissed from service. It was pleaded that respondent no.2 started filing criminal complaints and made up stories as if she was a victim of torture and cruelty in 19 years of marriage when there was not even a whisper of any allegation prior to September 2006. It was pleaded that the motivation for registration of the FIR was when the younger daughter came to stay with him and respondent no.2 in order to wreck personal vengeance concocted a story. It was pleaded that the younger daughter moved with him in February 2007 and respondent no.2 filed the first complaint on 18.02.2007, followed by a second complaint on 28.02.2007 and she made improvements and the third complaint was made on 05.03.2007 on which FIR (Annexure P-4) was registered.
3. Petitioner's plea is that vague allegations have been made of cruelty, harassment and allegations of abortion soon after their marriage were hollow and concocted and respondent no.2 had resorted t
