SANJU BALA Vs. POONAM BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM M 31513 of 2012 and CRM M 8850 of 2013, as these are the offshoot of the same proceedings involving identical questions of law and facts, for adjudication. Poonam Bala (Respondent No. 1 herein) has filed a private complaint for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband, parents-in-law and several other family members of her husband and in all 14 persons have been arrayed as accused, on the allegations that they have failed to return the dowry articles entrusted to them for the personal use of the complainant, detailed in list Annexure A and she being subject to maltreatment and torture including beatings on account of demand of Rs.1.00 lac, in cash. In January 2010, she was given severe beatings by the accused and turned out of the matrimonial home with serious threats to eliminate her, in case, she returned to the matrimonial home without satisfying the demand of Rs.1.00 lac.

(2.) The learned trial Court, on appraisal of evidence adduced during preliminary enquiry, passed order dated 14.10.2011, summoning all the accused to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners Sanju Bala and Anju Bala are the real sisters of Rajesh Kumar and petitioners Gulshan Kumar and Deepak Kumar are the respective husbands of Sanju Bala and Anju Bala. The marriage of complainant Poonam Bala with Rajesh Kumar was performed on 24.10.2007. At that time, the petitioners were already married several years prior to the marriage of the complainant and they have been leading a happy married life in their respective matrimonial houses. Sanju Bala and Gulshan Kumar are residing at some distance from the matrimonial home of the complainant, though, they are the residents of Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. Anju Bala and Deepak Kumar were married about 18 years prior to the marriage of the complainant and they have been living in Maloya Colony, Chandigarh since their marriage. It is argued with vehemence that the complainant brought forth general and vague allegations against all the persons arrayed as accused in a zeal to implicate the maximum numbers of relatives of Rajesh Kumar. The petitioners have nothing to do with the marital affairs of Poonam Bala and Rajesh Kumar and they have been falsely implicated in the crime. It is argued that two persons, namely, Gulshan Kumar and Sham Lal arrayed as accused at serial No. 7 and 8 respectively in the complaint, had already passed away before initiation of criminal proceedings and Neha Rani accused No. 9 expired during pendency of proceedings. According to counsel, the fact that some of the persons arrayed as accused had already left the world and no more alive goes a long way to show the mala fide intention of the complainant to indict as many persons as could be possible. Counsel for respondent No. 1 is fair enough to concede that the respondent has levelled general allegations against the petitioners in regard to the complainant being subject to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. However, specific allegations have been levelled against Deepak Kumar, accused No. 12 in the complaint, that he is a police employee at Chandigarh and the accused are threatening that they will implicate the parents of the complainant in some false cases. Another submission made by counsel is that Rajesh Kumar, husband of Poonam Bala, has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce by giving his address of Chandigarh and the said address is the residential address of Anju Bala and Deepak Kumar. It is further submitted that the complainant and the accused belong to lower middle class and the petitioners being the real sisters and brothers-in-law of Rajesh Kumar, have joined hands with Rajesh Kumar, his parents and others, to commit cruelty in connection with demand of Rs.1.00 lac, and the complainant is a victim of deep rooted conspiracy hatched by all the accused, which disentitle them to seek indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.