ASHWANI KUMAR JUNEJA Vs. ARUNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Ashwani Kumar Juneja and others have come to this court in this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated 6-8-1988, Annexure P-1, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana for offences under sections 406, 498-A, Indian Penal Code and also the subsequent proceedings on the basis thereof.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the impugned complaint, Smt. Aruna Kumari is the wife of Ajay Kumar, petitioner-5. She was married to him on 27-11-1986. The marriage was performed at Pathankot. At the instance of the accused persons, it was agreed that the articles of Istridhan shall be banded over to them at Ludhiana. The articles of dowry were then handed over to different accused persons, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the complaint, with the clear understanding that these constituted Istridhan and would be handed over to her on reaching the matrimonial home. In the matrimonial home, her mother-in-law Smt. Satya Devi gave one set of gold each to Anita, Neelam and Shashi Bala and when she objected to it, she was told tauntingly that she had no business to object to the same. Not only that the articles were not returned to her, but also all the accused persons started taunting her that her parents had not performed the marriage according to their wishes and that the articles were not upto their standard. She continued to bear the maltreatment and humiliation at the hands of the accused with a hope that better sense would prevail upon them some day. This, however, remained a wishful thinking. The accused persons continued maltreating and humiliating her with a motive to extract more costly articles from her and her parents. After sonic time, all the accused started pressurising her, that she should ring up her parents and ask them to give a car to the accused. She however. refused to make such a call and on her failure to do so, she was mercilessly beaten and all the accused took her in a Jeep to the house of her parents. She then narrated all the facts to her parents and her father showed his inability to give a car. The accused persons then got flared up and persisted that until a car was given to them they would not take her to their house. This incident took place on 7-2-1987. Thereafter the accused persons remained adamant in their behaviour and have net returned the dowry articles The marriage in this case was performed at Pathankot on 27-11-1986. Assuming that all the accused persons who are close relatives of Ajay Kumar, had joined that marriage, it would be a frivol us allegation that all of them then travelled to Ludhiana on 29-11-86 to receive Istridhan, meant to be given to the complainant by her parents. Naveen Chander and Harsh Chander petitioner and are brothers of Ajay Kumar; Smt. Shashi Bala is the wife of Naveen Chander and Smt. Namrata is the wife of Harsh Chander; Dr. Neelam Juneja is the sister of Ajay Kumar and Dr. Ashwani Kumar Juneja is her husband and Smt. Anita is sister of Ajay Kumar and Subhash Gupta is her husband. The married sisters of Ajay Kumar, alongwith their husbands, are obviously living separately from Ajay Kumar and except for attending some social functions, his sisters and their husbands hardly come to Ajay Kumar. The married brothers along with their wives also must be living separately and whatever disputes have arisen between Smt. Aruna Kumari and her husband, must be confined to both of them and Ajay Kumar's mother. Prior to the present complaint, in July 1988 Ajay Kumar had filed a petition under S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. She had thus, found that her marriage was on the rocks and the impugned complaint was brought implicating all the close relatives of her husband, so as to wreak vengeance on him. Vague allegations of their giving beatings to her were levelled and some of the dowry items were shown to have been made over to each of them. To Anita, Neelam and Naveen Chander articles like pillow covers, white bed sheets. towels, covers, woollen suits etc.; to Shashi Bala, Harash Chander, Subhash Gupta, articles such as TV, VCR, Refrigerator, cooler, geyser, press, mixer. juicer, room heater etc.; and to Namrata and Ashwani, articles such as 200 utensils etc. are shown to have been entrusted, If, in fact, all the articles, detailed in paragraph 1 of the criminal miscellaneous were given in dowry, the same must have been carried in a truck and it would have been a joint entrustment either to the husband or his parents. Articles like pillow covers, bed-sheets, watches etc., are never handed over as such, but must be in some boxes. Clearly, the complaint has been brought with an oblique motive so as to rope in all the close relatives who have their own families and had little chance to deal with the disputes of Ajay Kumar and his wife.