RENU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners have sought: the quashment of FIR No. 21 dt. 7-1-1988 for offences u/Ss.498-A, 109 and 406, Penal Code registered against them at Police Station City Panipat on the complaint of Harbhagwan Singh, brother of Smt. Raj Rani. According to the allegations in the first information report Smt. Raj Rani was married with Ashok Kumar accused-petitioner on 4-6-1979. Lekh Raj and Krishna Rani are the parents of aforesaid Ashok Kumar while Karam Chand and Kamlesh are his brothers and Renu is his sister. It is alleged that parents of Smt. Raj Rani had spent Rs.85,000.00 on her marriage but Smt. Raj Rani's in-laws being not satisfied with the dowry, started maltreating her and made her life miserable. It is further maintained that even after the marriage, the complainant gave Rs.8000/ -for the refrigerator and promised to give scooter whenever he will be able to manage money but the in-laws of Smt. Raj Rani kept on troubling her and ultimately she was turned out about six years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint was filed on 7-1-1988. Thereafter, Ashok Kumar petitioner filed a petition for divorce u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act levelling false allegations to the effect that Raj Rani was incapable of giving birth to a child. This application was subsequently got dismissed in May 1988 as withdrawn after Dr. Prem Lata, Lady Doctor, opined that Raj Rani was capable of conception. A complaint on these allegations was filed before the Judicial Magistrate who referred the same to the police u/S.156 of the Criminal P.C. and on the same date a case u/Ss. 498-A, 109, and 406. IPC, was registered against the accused-petitioners. Subsequently, during investigation offence under S. 406, IPC has also been added. The chargesheet has already been put in before the trial Court.

(2.) The accused-petitioners have sought quashment of the FIR and investigation connected therewith on the ground that as per allegations in the complaint, offence under S. 498-A was allegedly committed prior to the year 1983 and that the provisions of S.498-A, IPC having been inserted vide Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No.46 of 1983 which came into force with effect from 25-12-1985, the petitioners are not liable for that offence. It is also maintained that the allegations of entrustment of alleged dowry being vague, no offence u/S. 406, IPC, is made out. The provisions of S. 468 of the Cr. P.C. are also stressed in order to hold that the cognizance of these offences cannot be taken being barred by time as both these offences are punishable with imprisonment for three years and were committed about six years prior to the filing of the complaint.

(3.) Mr. J. B. Tacoria, the learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Gopi Chand Bhalla, the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, maintained that the offence u/S. 406, IPC being continuous one, there is no question of the cognizance of the same being barred by time. It is also maintained that the allegations of the husband in the divorce petition regarding Raj Rani being incapable of conceiving would also amount to cruelty within the meaning of S. 498-A, IPC, and thus limitation will start from the said date. It is further stressed that the husband and the parents-in-laws of Raj Rani were entrusted with the Stridhan of Raj Rani and they having not returned the same to her so far, are ex facie liable for offence u/S.406, I.P.C.