Bhupinder Singh vs Amandeep Kaur and Another

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The petitioner is maternal uncle of Varinder Singh, who was married to respondent No. 1 on 29.1.1995. One daughter was born out of the wedlock.

Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 12.3.2001 alleging, inter alia, that a sum of Rs. lac was handed over to the petitioner on an understanding that it was Istridhan and the same was misappropriated by him. The petitioner and other accused were not happy with the dowry and also scolded the complainant. On 25.4.1996, all the accused started demanding more money. On 13.8.1999, complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home.

This petition has been filed for quashing on the ground that the petitioner was living separately and had just gone in the marriage party and any articles, which are claimed to be "Istridhan", even if taken to have been given to the petitioner, would have been handed over to the complainant or her family members and there is no chance of any such item continuing with the petitioner, even after Six years of marriage, particularly, when the complainant herself had separated from the matrimonial home, more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. If it would have been otherwise, dispute would have been raised much earlier. Accountability for the Istridhan after six years of marriage will be that of husband or parents of the husband and not of distant relatives and, thus, naming of the petitioner by the complainant was abuse of the Court''s process and it is well settled that when a distant relative is named, mere allegation of the complainant should not be taken to be on the face value, without adequate corroboration.

It is also pointed out that allegations in the complainant about Istridhan are vague. In para 1, it is mentioned that dowry gifts and presents were handed over to the accused, which were to be treated as Istridhan, is an omnibus allegation, as gifts to relatives are not Istridhan.

I have heard learned Counsel for the complainant, who submits that since an averment has been made in the complaint, summoning of the petitioner was justified and correctness of the allegation cannot be gone into in a petition for quashing. It is also submitted that order of summoning was passed on 2.5.2001, while this petition was filed on 31.7.2002 and since revision petition was competent, this petition should not be entertained.

It is well settled that when distant relatives of a husband are named by an estranged wife, her mere version cannot be accepted as final against all the relatives. Distant relatives, in the normal course, will have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the couple. To prevent abuse of process of law, mere allegation against distant relatives cannot be accepted as final. Reference may be made to judgments in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Haryana 3 (1997) CCR 463 : 1997 (2) RCR 699 (P&H); Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1993 (1) RCR 354 (P&H); Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, etc. 2000 (3) 742; Inderjit Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Sushnta Rani 1988 (1) RCR 527 (P&H); Jasbir Kaur ami Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1990 (2) RCR 243 (P&H); Radha Rani v. Pannod Kumar ; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. 11 (2000) CCR 156 (SC) : 2000 (2) RCR 695 and Rishi Anand and Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2 (2002) CCR 19 (SC) : 97 (2002) DLT 36 (SC) : 2002 (2) RCR 272.

Applying this test, the petitioner being maternal uncle and separately settled, cannot be held to have misappropriated the Istridhan, after six years of the marriage. If he had been entrusted with any property of the complainant, the same would have been claimed by her husband with whom she lived for more than four years and had a child also.

Without expressing any opinion on the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the husband and mother-in-law or any other accused, proceedings against the petitioner are held to be abuse of the Court''s process.

As regards the contention that there is delay in filing of this petition after passing of the order of summoning, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition was filed soon after the petitioner received the summons and delay cannot be treated as absolute bar, if abuse of process of Court is established. Normally, challenge to order of summoning ought to be made expeditiously but having regard to the facts of the present case, delay cannot be accepted as absolute bar to entertain the petition for quashing, which stands entertained four years ago. Objection raised on behalf of the complainant is overruled.

In view of the above, proceedings in complaint, Annexure P-l, against the petitioner Bhupinder Singh, are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.