TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARAMJIT Kaur respondent No. 2 was married to Tarsem Singh petitioner, according to Sikh rites on May 11, 1987. Her father spent about, Rs. 50,000/- on her marriage and gave her dowry articles. Soon after marriage, Tarsem Singh petitioner, his parents Kehar Singh and Jaswant Kaur and his sister Amarjit Kaur started taunting her for bringing inadequate dowry. They also resorted to beating. She was not given proper food and they even tried to kill her by mixing poison in her food. They demanded a scooter, coloured television, refrigerator etc. as well as Rs. 20,000/- in cash. As she was unable to fulfil their demand, they removed her ornaments and maltreated her. Her father gave Rs. 10,000/- to Kehar Singh petitioner one month after the marriage so that she may not be harassed but, there was no change in the behaviour of the petitioners. Karamjit Kaur presented an application to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala containing these allegations, copy of which is Annexure P1. She also made complaint in writing to the SHO, Police Station Mullana, on the basis of which First Information Report No. 98 dated June 2, 1988 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners copy of which is Annexure P2. The petitioners have filed present petition under section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report Annexure P 2 and all the proceedings arising out of it as being gross abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners averred that they were involved in the case for extraneous, reasons. After marriage respondent No. 2 lived with the petitioners in village Bihta for a period of 11-1/2 months, only and then she left her matrimonial home. She was persuaded to return but the efforts remained futile. A petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was then filed against respondent No. 2 on May 3, 1988 and the case was got registered by the respondent is a counter-blast to harass the petitioners. The allegations made in the petition were vague and were of general nature and the First Information Report was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

(2.) A return was filed by respondent No. 1 wherein it was alleged that during investigation of the case no evidence as produced to show that the case was registered due to extraneous reasons. Respondent No. 2 was maltreated and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry and she was asked to bring some costly items along with cash from her parents. Moreover, the petitioners defence was to be looked into at the final stage of trial and not at the pre-mature stage of the framing of the charge. A charge could be framed even on the basis of a strong suspicion but in the present case there were clear and specific allegations against the petitioners.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the petitioners that there were no clear allegations, in the complaint regarding the entrustment of the dowry articles and misappropriation of the same. Even this fact is not mentioned that dowry articles were handed over to any of the petitioners. I find that so far as entrustment of the dowry articles is concerned, there are no specific allegations regarding the same but the main grievance of respondent No. 2 was that the petitioners were not satisfied with the given dowry to her and they harassed and compelled her to bring coloured television, scooter, refrigerator and cash from her parents. She was subjected to beating also on occasions. All the petitioner's are named in the First Information Report as the persons who subjected her to beating and treated her with cruelty. It is well settled by a long course of decisions that for the purpose of exercising its powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash First Information Report or complaint this Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report or the documents accompanying the same. During investigation of the case, statements of Jagir Singh, Shiv Dayal and Harminder Kaur were recorded, copies of which are Annexure R-1 to R-3 and these statements also revealed a prima facie case against the petitioners. The allegations made in the First Information Report are assumed to be true and these uncontroversial allegations prima facie establish the offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Consequently, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.