SUNJAY DUTTA Vs. SONALI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 Smt. Sonali Dutta was married to the petitioner Sanjay Dutta at Lucknow. The petitioner Dhirender Nath Dutta is father and the petitioner Gautam Dutta is brother of petitioner Sanjay Dutta. Respondent No. 2 Sanjiv Dutta is also brother of Sanjay Dutta. The respondent Smt. Sonali Dutta filed a criminal complaint under Section 406 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P.2). In this complaint it was alleged that certain dowry articles were entrusted to the accused who have refused to hand them over to the bride respondent No. 1. After recording preliminary evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. The complaint (Annexure P.2) and the summoning order (Annexure P.3) have been sought to be quashed by the petitioners under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The only ground on which the impugned complaint and the proceedings taken thereon by the trial Magistrate are sought to be quashed is that in a previous complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure P.1), the respondent Smt. Sonali Dutta had implicated only the husband Sanjay Dutta petitioner and not the other two petitioners or respondent No. 2. In other words it is said that the filing of a complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by Smt. Sonali Dutta only against the petitioner Sanjay Dutta will indicate that the criminal complaint under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, filed subsequently against petitioners No. 2 and 3 and respondent No. 2 is false. In my opinion the impugned complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. It is held in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Krishna Rohtagi and others, 1983 1 RCR(Cri) 73, that the proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint, or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is the taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court is justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court then observed in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985 1 RCR(Cri) 539, that it is well settled by a long course of decisions of that Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.

(3.) In the present case it cannot be said that the offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioners on the allegations in the impugned complaint. As such at the initial stage of summoning the accused the proceedings taken by the trial Magistrate cannot be quashed.