ROSHAN LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MARRIAGE of Anju Jain respondent No. 2 solemnised with Sanjiv Kumar son of Roshan Lal petitioner on 10th March, 1985 at Hoshiarpur. On 7th February, 1988 Sanjiv Kumar died due to brain tumor and after his death respondent No. 2 was taken along by her parents on the pretext of helping her to overcome her grief. Efforts were made to bring her to overcome her grief. Efforts were made to bring her back to her matrimonial home but she refused. Rather on 20th March, 1988 she told that she had decided to settle permanently with her parents and she demanded her belongings. Petitioner No. 1 permitted her to take all the articles against an acknowledgement but father of the respondent was not willing to issue a receipt. A registered notice was served on respondent No. 2 on 21-3-1988 that she could take her articles back against a receipt. On 5-6-1988 the respondent received all the articles of dowry and also a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- and signed an acknowledgement to that effect in the presence of the respectables. Before the receipt of dowry articles respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint in court on 20-5-1988 under Sections 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the basis of which FIR No. 122 dated 2-6-1988 was registered at Police Station Section - 39, Chandigarh.When respondent No. 2 received all the articles of dowry, she submitted an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh that she did not want to pursue the complaint. She also swore an affidavit to that effect but still a chargesheet was presented in the Court against the petitioners and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh framed a charge against them copy of which was Annexure P-6. The present petition has been filed by the father and other relative of the deceased husband of Anju Jain under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 122 dated 2-6-1988 under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom.

(2.) IT was alleged in the petition that the petitioner were being prosecuted on technical ground otherwise the matter had been finally settled between he parties and respondent No. 2 had submitted an application and an affidavit to the Police (Annexures P-4 an P-5) that she did not want to proceed with the case. Even otherwise First Information Report lodged by respondent No. 2 was an abuse of the process of law. Petitioner No. 1 was justified in asking a receipt for the articles and he never refused to hand over the articles to the respondent, hence there was no breach of trust.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure P-1 shows that a registered notice was sent to respondent No. 2 on 21-3-1988 by petitioner No. 1 whereby she was called upon to take all her articles from petitioner No.1 after giving him a valid receipt for the same. On 5th June, 1988 vide Annexure P-2 which was duly signed by respondent No. 2, she received all articles of dowry including stridhan and also a cheque for Rs. 20,000/-. She had filed a complaint against the petitioner earlier to the receipt of the articles but after she was handed over articles of dowry, she wrote to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh that she did not want to proceed with the complaint. Copy of the letter is Annexure P-4 and her affidavit to that effect is Annexure P-5. All these documents reveal that there was no misappropriation of articles of dowry by the petitioners and petitioner No. 1 was always ready and willing to hand over the articles against a receipt. In these circumstances continuation of proceedings against the petitioners will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash First Information REport Annexure P-3 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist-Class, Chandigarh. Petition allowed.