PARMOD KUMAR OBEROI Vs. RADHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of complaint dated 26-8-1988, Annexure P/1, summoning order dated 8-5-1989, Annexure P/2 and subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, as emerge from complaint, Annexure P/1, are, that the marriage between Radha Rani, respondent and Parmod Kumar Oberoi petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 17-11-1985 according to Hindu rites, whereas, the ring ceremony was performed at Patiala at the house of the respondent on 10th November, 1985. At that time dowry articles consisting of ornaments, costly clothes cash of Rs. 31,000/- and other costly articles of daily use as mentioned in the list (Annexure 'a') were given by the parents of the respondent, and, entrusted to all the accused on behalf of the complainant for being handed over to her after the marriage. All the articles were listed and the list along with vouchers were given to the accused and the same in their possession. It was further pleaded that the articles mentioned in Annexure 'a' belonged to them and were taken to Amritsar by the petitioners and retained there. In spite of repeated requests the accused-petitioners did not hand over the same to the complainant. It is further pleaded that soon after their marriage, all the accused started treating the complainant with cruelty, as they always demanded more dowry from the parents of the complainant. Vidyawati mother-in-law and Achla respondent No. 5 her daughter always taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry. The complainant wilfully suffered all these insults so that her matrimonial home may remain intact. All the accused mal-treated the complainant, even, when she was pregnant. Dr. Krishan Kumar accused gave an injection causing miscarriage of 2-1/2 months old foetus, in order to deprive the complainant birth of second child. Thereafter the complainant fells seriously ill, but, her parents were never informed, and, ultimately her husband left her and minor child Mohit Kumar at Patiala. The husband also destroyed her matriculation and graduation certificates, which caused her mental cruelty. It was next pleaded that all the clothes and jewellery and other articles entrusted to the accused were Istridhan of the complainant, and they are in possession of the same and have wilfully and dishonestly misappropriated the same by converting the said articles to their own use, and, thereby committed criminal breach of trust. Father of the complainant along with other respectables went in the form of Panchayat, and, requested the accused to treat the complainant properly, and, keep her at her matrimonial home. The accused refused to do so. On 1-7-1988, complainant's father along with Satvinder Singh took the complainant to Amritsar to the house of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 who, maltreated and insulted them as well, and, were not allowed to enter the house.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to appreciate the question of proper exercise of inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashment of complaint and other criminal proceedings. Dealing with this aspect of the case, the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Murad AH Khan and Ors. , AIR 1989 S. C. 1, held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or, otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible, nor, advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court, is, guided by the allegations, whether these allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge sheet do not in law constitute, or, spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings, would in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not.