BHIRANWAN DEVI Vs. ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of complaint, copy Annexure P4, filed by the respondent, Mrs. Aruna for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Sections 120-B, 34, Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala.

(2.) The respondent, Mrs. Aruna was married with Neel Kamal son of late Shri Arjan Dev and petitioner No. 1, Smt. Bhirawan Devi on 20.9.1991 at Patiala according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated and a daughter was born out of the wedlock on 14.11.1992 and she was named as Kanika. Respondent, Smt. Aruna is alleged to be a lady of quarrelsome nature and she used to pick up quarrel with her deceased husband and other family members on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that she used to insult her husband as well as his family members. The respondent used to go to the house of her parents without the permission of her husband and whenever her husband visited the house of her parents to bring her back she used to insult her husband and used to tell him that she did not like him and she asked the husband to leave her house. It is alleged that in February, 1994, the father of the respondent-Smt. Aruna expired and she left Bhatinda for attending the cremation alongwith her husband Neel Kamal who returned to Bhatinda after attending the cremation while the respon- dent stayed at Patiala. The respondent, however, visited Bhatinda after one week of the death of her father after attending the Bhog/ritual ceremonies of her deceased father. The respondent, however, stayed back at Patiala and while leaving Bhatinda she had allegedly taken alongwith her all the golden ornaments and other valuables without the knowledge and consent of her husband. The deceased, husband Neel Kamal visited Patiala on number of times and tried to bring the respondent back to her matrimonial house but each time she refused to do so. The respondent, thus, deserted her husband without any reasonable cause or excuse. Neel Kamal was much frustrated and disappointed and he consumed poison and committed suicide on 3.5.1997, a copy of the death certificate dated 1.4.1998 was enclosed as Annexure P1. A report was also lodged in that connection vide copy Annexure P2. It is further alleged that Shri Arjan Dev father of the deceased Neel Kamal could not bear the sudden death of his son Neel Kamal and he also expired on 13.5.1997 due to heart attack. The copy of the death certificate has been enclosed as Annexure P3 which is dated 21.5.1997. Shri Arjan Dev left behind his aged wife i.e. petitioner No. 1, unmarried daughter and a minor son who had no financial support as there was no earning male member left in the house. It has been contended that in this back- ground, the respondent with a view to harass, humiliate and torture the petitioners filed the impugned complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala. The complaint has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. In the complaint it has been alleged, inter alia, that the respondent was harassed and tortured by her in-laws for the demand of dowry and that her in-laws have misappropriated the, dowry items/Istridhan belonging to the respondent. The impugned complaint is sought to be quashed on the grounds, inter alia, that the same has been filed after a lapse of four years from the alleged date of occurrence which clearly shows that it is an after-thought. Apart from it the impugned complaint is not maintainable as the husband and the father-in-law of respondent are no longer alive. The husband, Neel Kamal and the father-in-law Shri Arjan Dev both died due to indifferent attitude and insulting behaviour of the respondent who caused mental torture to both the deceased i.e. husband as well as the father-in-law. The respondent was residing separately from the petitioner since 1994 as she had left the company of the petitioners after three years of her marriage and now she has chosen to file the impugned complaint which contained false and fabricated facts. In the impugned complaint the petitioner No. 1 has been wrongly named as Vidya Wati instead of Bhiranwan Devi, which shows the callous attitude of the respondent and it also indicates her non-cooperation and harassment qua the petitioners. The respondent has already taken away the items of dowry and whatever items of dowry are lying at the house of the petitioners in the form of the furniture, the same can be taken by her without any restrictions or hitch. After the death of Neel Kamal, the husband of the respondent and Shri Arjan Dev, husband of petitioner No. 1 it is the moral and legal duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners but the respondent instead of doing so has opted to harass and humiliate the petitioners by filing the impugned complaint. It has also been contended that the complaint deserves to be quashed only on the ground of delay and laches as it has been filed after a lapse of seven years.

(3.) Notice was issued to the respondent who put in appearance and filed her reply in the shape of her affidavit wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the impugned complaint about her being harassed by her deceased husband and deceased father-in-law for bringing more dowry. She has alleged that her husband Neel Kamal was a drunkard which was admitted by his father, Shri Arjan Dev in report, copy Annexure P2. Neel Kamal used to beat her at the instigation of the petitioners and father-in-law, Shri Arjan Dev under the influence of the liquor. It is further alleged that the respondent had a minor daughter who alongwith her was turned out of the matrimonial house as she could not fulfil their demand of bringing Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The allegations of the dowry items and jewellery having been taken away by the respondent have been denied as being made only with a view to create a difference. It was reiterated that all the dowry items were lying at the matrimonial house and with the petitioners. It has also been contended that there are specific allegations made in the impugned complaint. Explaining the delay in filing the complaint she has contended that she was turned out of the matrimonial house in the year 1994 and efforts were made to settle the deponent in her matrimonial house but the efforts failed hence the complaint was filed. The respondent alleged that the correct name of her mother-in-law was Vidya Wati and not Bhiranwan Devi.