Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Hari Pal Verma, J.
Neha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 4790 of 2016
Decided On : 10-05-2019
Sumit Sangwan, Adv., Mahima Yashpal, Adv., B.R. Gupta, Adv.
The judgment established the principle that the absence of specific allegations and the misuse of the legal process warrant the quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Misuse of Process of Law - Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 406, and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the misuse of the SC/ST Act, the power of the High Court to quash proceedings, and the tendency to involve entire family members in matrimonial disputes. The judgment highlighted the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner and the adverse effect of trial on her marriage prospects.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an unmarried sister-in-law, sought to quash an FIR alleging harassment for dowry. The complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, accused the petitioner and her family of harassment and discrimination. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and a misuse of the legal process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR against the petitioner was a total misuse of the legal process and a result of superstition. It noted the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner and the adverse effect of trial on her marriage prospects.
Issues: The issues revolved around the misuse of the SC/ST Act, the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner, and the tendency to involve entire family members in matrimonial disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner was a total misuse of the legal process and that the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner warranted the quashing of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Hari Pal Verma, J. - Petitioner Neha, who is an unmarried sister-in-law of the respondent No.2-complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.39 dated 23.10.2015 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC as well as Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SC/ST Act) registered at Women Police Station, Bhiwani and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of respondent No.2 Deepa, who was married with Abhinav Pal on 11.05.2014. The other coaccused, namely, Abhinav Pal is husband and Veenu is mother-in-law.
3. As per the FIR, father of the complainant spent sufficient amount on her betrothal and marriage ceremonies. She lived with her husband in Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. However, after the marriage, behaviour of her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (present petitioner) was not good towards her. They raised demand of more dowry and started harassing her. She was subjected to cruelty for insufficient dowry. Her father gave cash of Rs.30,000/- and certain gifts on the occasion of Diwali festival. Again he gave cash amount of Rs.30,000/- and some gifts to her inlaws on the occasion of Lohri festival. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste (Chamar) community, whereas her father-in-law belongs to Backward (Kamboj) community. They also called her with bad names and used derogatory words against her father. Since she was consistently being harassed, she moved a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani on 19.10.2015 leading to registration of the present F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, in fact, marriage between respondent No.2-complainant with Abhinav Pal was a love marriage. The complainant is well-qualified lady holding a gazetted post. She herself opted to get married with a boy, who is about 8 years younger to her. Since the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, whereas the petitioner belongs to Backward class, the provision of offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act has been misused. At the time of marriage, the complainant was posted as Assistant Professor in Government College, Panchkula and after marriage, she joined as Assistant Professor in Government College, Bawani Khera in July, 2015. The complainant got herself transferred from Panchkula to Bawani Khera on 02.07.2015 on the ground of completing her service in rural areas in fulfilment of condition of the Government policy.
5. He has further argued that since the parties to the marriage could not pull well, a divorce petition was filed by Abhinav Pal against respondent No.2-complainant in District Court, Chandigarh on 15.10.2015. However, respondent No.2 moved an application before this Court seeking transfer of said petition to Bhiwani Court. Since it was a love marriage between the parties, no dowry articles were exchanged and as it was marriage of the liking of the parties, the petitioner, who is unmarried elder sister of Abhinav Pal, was not going to be benefitted with any dowry articles.
6. He has further contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for demand of dowry or harassment caused to respondent No.2. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she was a party with the husband and mother-in-law in harassing the complainant.
7. As per the complainant, in the month of September, when parents-in-law of the complainant had gone to their native place Yamuna Nagar to attend a marriage in some close relations, the petitioner had cut the hair of the complainant and handed over the same to her mother-in-law. The allegation is that whenever the complainant used to come from her college and to take rest in a room, then the petitioner and mother-in-law of the complainant used to oust her from the room and used to say that the complainant does not belong to a royal family and, theref
