RITU SAREEN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Ritu Sareen has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., praying for the issuance of directions to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to perform their statutory duty as enshrined under Section 154, Cr. P.C., by registering a criminal case against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the basis of complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P-3) (15th February, 1996 as shown to this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Shri J. S. Brar, D.A.G.).

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that she was married to respondent No. 4 on 18th June, 1994. Earlier to her marriage, she was working as a Lecturer in S. D. College, Panipat. In 1992 she was approved by respondent No. 4 and his parents and, therefore, she left her job from Panipat and joined as Lecturer in D. D. Jain College at Ludhiana in October 1993. Since then she is working as . Lecturer at Ludhiana. In 1994 respondent No. 4 was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer with United India Insurance Company at Chandigarh. It was assured to the petitioner's family that since the petitioner is working at Ludhiana, therefore, respondent No. 4 shall also get himself transferred to Ludhiana, after their marriage, being a couple case. Father of the petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. The ring ceremony of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 was performed on 11th June, 1994 at her house itself and thereafter their marriage took place on 18th June, 1994. At the-time of ring ceremony as well as marriage, father of the petitioner spent huge amount beyond his reach and gave expensive articles in the shape of dowry apart from cash and golden ornaments. The dowry articles, a complete detail of which is furnished in the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3), were handed over to respondents Nos. 4 to 8 as trustees and to hold on behalf of the petitioner. The lunch to the marriage party was hosted at Hotel Grewlez whereas the marriage was performed at the father's house of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the marriage, respondent No. 4 started insisting the petitioner to bring Rs. 10 lacs from her father so as to enable him to purchase a flat. The petitioner showed her inability on the plea that her father had already spent a huge amount at the time of her marriage. Thereupon the petitioner was treated with extreme cruelty by respondents Nos. 4 to 8, It was stated to the petitioner that until and unless she arranges Rs. 10 lacs from her father, she would not be allowed to be rehabilitated. It is also the case of the petitioner that after marriage, her father gave various articles to respondent No. 4 on different dates, as mentioned in complaint (Annexure P3), valuing at Rs. 50,000/- to respondents Nos. 4 to 8. In para No. 1 of the petition it has been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 deserted her in order to create a ground for divorce. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner on 25-4-1995 before the Court of Additional District Judge. Ludhiana. The petitioner appeared before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, and did not file a .written statement. She rather made a statement on 28th October, 1995 to the effect that she was prepared to go to the house of respondent No. 4 at Chandigarh. He would take a house at Chandigarh. It was also agreed upon that the petitioner would commute from Chandigarh to Ludhiana daily, where she was posted. The statement of respondent No. 4 was also recorded and on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioner, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by respondent No. 4, was dismissed. It has been: averred by the petitioner that in spite of the undertaking given by respondent No. 4 that he would arrange a suitable accommodation at Chandigarh within 2-3 days and thereafter she would be taken there, he has not fulfilled her demand. The petitioner had been asking respondent No. 4 on telephone and otherwise to comply with his obligations, but to no effect; so much so, she also wrote registered letters dated 20th November, 1995 and 23rd December, 1995^ to respondent No. 4 asking him to inform her the place and date at Chandigarh, where she should reach in terms of the settlement dated 28th October, 1995. In para No. 9 of the petition it has been alleged by the petitioner that on 7th January, 1996 respondents Nos. 4 to 8 came to the house of her father to inform that they are no longer interested in continuing with the merital ties. On this the petitioner asked the said respondents to return her Istri Dhan which her father had entrusted to all of them at the- time of her marriage with respondent No. 4 and subsequently from time to time, However, the said respondents flatly refused to deliver back those articles and thus rendered themselves punishable for committing cognizable offence under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and the Police has failed to discharge its statutory duty as prescribed under Section 154, Cr. P.C. inasmuch as no case has been formally registered against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the basis of the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3). Hence the present petition.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. The petition has been primarily contested by respondents Nos. 4 to 8. The State has not filed any separate written statement. During the course of submissions, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint dated 16th January, 1996 (Annexure P3) and the subsequent proceedings which indicate that the complain was investigated at the level of the authorities, including the D.S.P. and ultimately it was filed under the signatures of the S. S. P., Ludhiana. The D.S.P. made a report dated 9th June, 1996 referring that the differences arise between the matrimonial couple. There was a civil litigation in which there was a compromise but that compromise did not mature. The police ultimately stated in the report that no action was required at the level of the police. Hence that complaint was filed under the signatures of the S.S.P.