Angrez Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and ors..

H.S. Bedi, J.

The present petition has been filed by Angrez Singh and others for quashing of complaint dated 16th September, 1989, filed against them for the offences under sections 406, 498A and 109, Indian Penal Code, and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Angrez Singh petitioner No. 1 was married to Sudershan Kaur. respondent No. 2 on 3rd March. 1938 according to Sikh rites. It is averred that respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home on 15th April, 1988, and thereafter did not return to her marital home. Petitioner No. 1 applied for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 26th August, 1989. and those proceedings are still pending. The present complaint has been filed on 16th September, 1989, in which various allegations have been levelled against the petitioners.

Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that in order to proceed with a prosecution under section 4 of the Act, the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such other officer as the State Government my authorise has to be taken. This not having been done, the prosecution under the Act must fail. For this purpose, he has cited Deepak Kumar and another v. The State of Punjab and another, 1989(1) CLR 575.

Mr. S. S. Randhawa, appearing for the respondents, has, however, brought the judgment reported as Harinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent CR 583, wherein a contrary view appears to have been taken.

I have examined the matter with reference to the latest provisions of the Act, as applicable to the State of Punjab, and find that no prosecution can be instituted under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or some other duly authorised officer. I am also supported in this view by the Judgment reported in Deepak Kumar''s case (supra). It is, therefore, clear that an offence under section 4 of the Act cannot be proceeded with and to that extent the complaint is not maintainable.

It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that a reading of complaint indicates that there is no specific allegation of entrustment made out to any of the petitioners. He has brought to my notice paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint. The said paragraphs are reproduced below :

"2. That at the time of marriage all the accused were present at Faridkot and at the asking and demand of all the accused we gave gold ornaments about 9 tolas, which included pendal, chain, bangles, earrings (one pair), Kara, three rings. valuing about Rs. 35,000/ which were got purchased from Madan Lal Goldsmith, whose receipt is attached along with it.

(ii) Clothes : 21 suits, 11 beddings and other fancy suits and cloth valueing Rs. 14,000/ whose bills (some) are attached.

(iii) Furniture : Sofaset, dressing table, bed, Tapai, dining table, trunk valuing Rs. 6250/prepared from Mahinder Singh Carpenter (receipt attached).

(iv) Sewing machine, table fan, steel and brass utensils, two VIP big brief cases, valuing Rs. 5500/ and other luggage were handed over to the accused in the presence of the above mentioned witnesses at the time of Doli for the use of Sudershan Kaur.

That the accused are greedy people. After some days of the marriage, they started saying that they were not given dowry and money according to their demand and status. T. V. and Fridge were not given.

In order to see that Sudershan Kaur is settled down properly in the house of Angrez Singh, Rs. 3500/ were given to him in April, 1988. But the attitude of the accused towards Sudershan Kaur remained the same, and all the belongings were taken in their custody. They used to trouble her all the time and taunt her that they had married their son in a penniless family and that they would marry him off in a well to do family. After some days we gave Rs. 8000/ in cash to accused Nos. 1 and 3 for purchasing a Fridge. But their greed kept on increasing and they did not buy any T. V. & Fridge till now, but kept on demanding more money and goods so that more they trouble her, more money and goods may be given to them.

All the accused used to beat Sudershan Kaur and taunt her and kept her hungry and all the accused jointly have misappropriated het belongings. And at least in October, 1988, they turned out Sudershan Kaur in three clothes by giving beating, saying that they would marry accused Angrez Singh somewhere else."

These paragraphs do support the contentions advanced by Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia that only general allegations have been made against all the petitioners jointly and it has not been specified as to what particular item was entrusted to which individual petitioner. In order to support the argument that specific allegations have to be made to bring home the charge under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, reliance has been placed on Krishan Lal and others v. State of Haryana & anr., 1990(1) Recent CR 183 and Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 527 (P&H) : 1988(2) PLR 28. Mr. Randhawa, learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, cited Smt. Bimla Devi and another v. Union Territory Chandigarh and another, 1991(1) Recent CR 470 in order to show that no specific allegations need be made in order to bring home the charge against the accused. The above authority is clearly distinguishable on the facts. In Krishan Lal''s case (supra) it has clearly been held by a learned single Judge of this Court that in case the complainant does not specifically state as to who was entrusted with the dowry articles and if general allegations are made the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It has further been held that such general allegations are an inherent infirmity in the complaint which cannot be cured by witnesses in testimony at the trial. It is also manifest that the complaint itself is mala fide. Respondent No. 2 admittedly left the marital home about five weeks after the marriage which compelled petitioner No. 1 to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights on 26th August, 1989. The present complaint which was filed on 16th September, 1989, appears to be a counterblast to the abovenoted application. It may further be high lighted that the entire family of petitioner No. 1 who is the husband of respondent No. 2, has been roped in by making general and vague statement. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1, 4 and 5 are his brothers and 6 and 7 are his sisters. Admittedly, petitioners Nos, 5, 6 and 7 do not even reside with petitioner No. 1. The complainant has, therefore, tried to cast her net wide in order to intimidate the petitioners. On this score as well the complaint is liable to be quashed

In the light of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed, the impugned complaint and all proceedings connected therewith are hereby quashed.