SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY, the material facts are that Sudesh Rani respondent No. 3 was married to Krishan Lal on November 25, 1984 at Rajpura. After the marriage, the couple lived at Patiala alongwith the in-laws of Sudesh Rani. Diwan Chand and Smt. Sham Pyari are the parents of Krishan Lal. Sudarshan Kumar and Sheela Devi are brother and sister-in-law of Krishan Lal and Amar Nath is the father of Sheela Devi. Krishan Lal died on February 13,1989. Sudesh Rani went to her parents' house at Rajpura in accordance with custom after some days of the death of her husband and when she came back, she is stated to have been turned out of the house by the aforesaid relations of the husband. She was, thus, denied her right to live in the family house as also her istridhan property which was lying in the house. She filed a complaint, Annexure P-l, under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34, Indian, Penal Code, against the aforementioned relations of the husband on May 2,1989. It was forwarded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant Sudesh Rani produced some documents before the police and a case for the aforesaid offences was registered at Police Station Rajpura on May 12, 1989, on the basis of the said complaint. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid complaint was filed on June 14, 1989, i. e. , about one month after the registration of the case.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complaint, the articles mentioned in the list attached with the complaint as Annexure 'a' were Istridhan of the complainant and the same had been entrusted. to Diwan Chand, his wife Smt. Sham Pyari and his son Sudarshan Kumar at the time of marriage at Rajpura in November 1984. After the death of the complainant's husband, when she went back to her in-laws' house after spending a few days at her parental house on March 18, 1989, she was turned out of the house and was net allowed to take away any of those articles. A demand for the return of the Istridhan articles produced no result. It was further alleged that the action of the accused persons, including father-in-law of Sudarshan Kumar, who had played a leading role in inflicting mental cruelty on the complainant in driving the complainant to utter destitution amounted to cruelty denned in Section 498-A, Indian. Penal Code. It was, therefore, prayed that a case be got registered against the accused and they may be punished according to law.

(3.) THE main grounds for seeking quashing of the complaint are that the entire family of Diwan Chand had been roped in, that the allegations made in the complaint did not constitute an offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, that Rajpura police had no territorial jurisdiction, that no specific allegations had been made and that the facts mentioned in the complaint disclosed, if at all, a dispute of a civil nature and resort to criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of the Court.