SUNITA ALIAS PINKY Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Sunita alias Pinky daughter of Shri Gian Chand, and her father Gian Chand son of Sohan Lal have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against Smt. Sunita daughter of Jagan Nath, and have prayed for the quashment of the complaint Annexure P. 1 and the summoning order Annexure P. 2. At the outset I would like to incorporate the facts. Smt. Sunita respondent earlier filed a complaint under Section 498-A read with Section 406 IPC against her husband Promod Kumar, her father-in-law Gian Chand and her sister-in-law Sunita alias Pinky by alleging that she was married with accused No. 1 Promod Kumar on 8-7-1989 at Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and out of this wed-lock a male child was born on 4-8-1990. At the time of marriage, cash amounting to Rs. 23,000/- for the purchase of T. V., Fridge and Furniture etc. and gold ornaments and other valuable clothes were given to the complainant in gift by her parents and other relatives as per Annexure 'A' of the complaint and those articles along with articles mentioned in Annexure 'B' constituted her Stridhan. Soon after the marriage the accused meted the complainant with cruelty and subjected her with intimidation, insult, humiliation and mental torture as in their eyes the articles brought by her in dowry from her parents were less and of inferior quality. The respondent pressurised the complainant to bring a scooter and fine clothes for all members of the family on different occasions. She had been bringing this to the notice of her parents. On 8-1-1991, her father Jagan Nath visited her house at about 10 A.M. and he found the complainant locked on the upper storey of the house. In Para No. 8 of the complaint, the complainant had alleged that the amount of Rs. 23000/- was entrusted to accused No. 1 for the purchase of TV, Fridge and furniture and on the demand of the accused she further entrusted gold ornaments such as one Chain set, four Bangles, two necklace sets and two Kade (Bangles) weighing about 21 Tolas to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is further alleged by the complainant that Smt. Sunita the accused Nos. 1 to 3 had a criminal conspiracy and got shifted accused No. 1 along with the complainant at Mohali on 4-4-1991. Still accused No. 1 used to beat her on the alleged abetment accused Nos. 2 and 3 as the complainant failed meet the demand of the accused. Accused No. 1 turned out the complainant from the house on 26-12-1992 at 7 P.M. by keeping with him the male child who was aged about 2 years at that time. The father of the complainant sent her back to her husband's house on 28-12-1992 without caring for her fate and the interest of the child. However, accused No. 1 Promod Kumar abused and maltreated her. It is further alleged by the complainantthat her brother T. L. Goel and one Om Parkash her brother-in-law came to her house on 29-12-1992 and talked with accused No. 1 not to mis-behave with the complainant but to no effect. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police. So much so, even the father of the complainant lodged a complaint with the Chief Minister, Punjab on 6-1-1993 and narrated the entire story. The complainant also appeared in the office of Superintendent of Police Mohali on 13-1-1993. Accused No. 1 was summoned in the office but he did not appear. Finally, he appeared on 8-2-1993 along with Shri Om Parkash Sharma, President of M. C. Kharar and others and the matter was got compromised. As a result of that compromise accused No. 1 rehabilitated the complainant in his house on 9-2-1993 but he did not withdraw his case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Shri H. S. Madan, Sub Judge 1st Class, Kharar in violation of the compromise in order to harass and torture the complainant. The complainant further alleges that she was subjected to mental torture, legal and financial harassment by accused No. 1 who dragged her in the litigation under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Finally the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed on 5-1-1995 by the Court when respondent No. 1 could not lead the evidence. The complainant further alleges that accused No. 1 Promod Kumar tried to kill her on the night intervening 26-27-1-94 by strangulating her while she was asleep. She saved herself with great difficulty. On the morning of 27-1-1994 she went to the house of her father and told the entire matter to her father. The matter was reported to the police. However, accused No. 1 ran away from his house. He again visited the house on 6-4-1994 and turned out the complainant from the house along with the male child in three wearing apparels. The complainant again approached to the President, Punjab Stri Sabha, Chandigarh. The members of the said Sabha visited the house of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 (accused) was summoned but he did not listen to the advice of Cell. Again a complaint was sent by the father of the complainant on 6-3-1994 to the Superintendent of Police, Mohali. In para No. 17 of the complaint, the specific allegations made by the complainant is that when she was turned out from the house by accused No. 1 on 6-4-1994, the complainant left all her dowry articles as mentioned in Annexures 'A' and 'B' at the house of her husband "It should be presumed that these articles were handed over to her husband accused No. 1 on behalf of the complainant". The complainant demanded back her entrusted cash of Rs. 23000/-, gold ornaments, valuable clothes and other articles being Stridhan from the accused many times but he refused to do so; hence they had allegedly committed an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 406 IPC.

(2.) Vide order dated 12-1-1996, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar after recording the statement of Sunita, Tarsem Lal her brother, Jagan Nath, her father, and one Ram Lubhai summoned both the petitioners and Promod Kumar by passing the following orders :

(3.) Aggrieved by the complaint as well as by the summoning order, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the complaint filed by Smt. Sunita respondent is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The impugned summoning order is unsustainable. The learned Magistrate did not discuss any evidence before summoning the present petitioners. Moreover, a perusal of the complaint would show that all the allegations of the cruelty and mis-appropriation have been levelled against the husband Promod Kumar. In para No. 7 of the petition it has been stated by the petitioners that the case of the complainant-respondent is that she shifted to Mohali along with her husband on 4-4-1991 and never joined the company of the present petitioners after that day. Thus any allegation against the petitioners in respect of the alleged cruelty pertaining to the period prior to 4-4-1991 does not make out any offence against the petitioners and no cognizance can be taken regarding the offence under Section 498-A IPC as the complaint was filed after a period of 4 years and the alleged cruelty as isevident from the date of the filing of the complaint which is dated 14-3-1995. The limitation for filing the case under Section 498-A IPC is three years as provided under Section 498 Cr. P.C. because the maximum sentence under Section 498-IPC is three years. On this short ground the complaint is liable to be quashed. Further the case of the petitioner is that as per para No. 17 of the complaint, the complainant herself has admitted that it should be presumed that all the dowry articles were handed over to respondent No. 1 i.e. husband on behalf of the complainant and if there is any criminal breach of trust that could only be attributed to the husband and not to the present petitioners. It is further alleged by the petitioners in the petition that the allegations of cruelty and alleged entrustment vis-a-vis the petitioners are vague, false to the knowledge of the complainant and thus tentamounts to the abuse of the process of law, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order viz-a-viz the petitioners are liable to be set aside.