Harmeet Singh vs The State of Punjab and Another

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Harpal Singh respondent No. 2 in quashing petition Cr. Misc. No. 3606-M of 1990 reported to the police vide Annexure P. 1 that his son-in-law Harmeet Singh petitioner had deprived his daughter Kanwaljit Kaur of her Stridhan, had been cruel to her all along after marriage; which was solemnised at Ghagga on 9th February, 1988, had brought to her matrimonial home a mistress named Paramjit Kaur during the life time of his married wife and had extended to his daughter Kanwaljit Kaur aforesaid the threat of her life. Case registered by the police on its basis is pending trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana District Ludhiana.

Husband Harmeet Singh is wanting First Information Report and the proceedings based upon it to be quashed on the grounds that no offence u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code is made out from a reading of the First Information Report and that the averments made therein regarding misappropriation of Stridhan, cruelty and extension of threats of her life to his wife by him are all baseless.

I have heard Shri A.S. Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner husband, Shri Hari Singh Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 2, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the State and have carefully perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has himself produced before me a copy of the order passed by my learned brother S.S. Grewal, J. in Criminal Misc. No. 9934-M of 1989 entitled Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr., on 11th May, 1990 holding that the proceedings u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code would be taken by the learned trial court on the separate complaint of the petitioner''s wife Kanwaljit Kaur both against the petitioner and Smt. Paramjit Kaur while the petitioner before this Court would alone be proceeded against under Sections 406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Relevant observations read, "However, the trial court would proceed according .to law and take appropriate action against the present petitioner, as far as offence under Sections 494 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. The trial court would also proceed according to law against the other co-accused and dispose of this case expeditiously."

Marriage having been performed at Ghagga, the articles of dowry/Stridhan were received by the petitioner at Ghagga. In terms of Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Criminal Court at Samana can certainly entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute.

It was observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, , "Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satislied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence" Whether the allegations made in the complaint are baseless or not shall have to be decided by the learned trial court. This court obviously would not usurp the jurisdiction of the learned trial court in quashing proceedings. Dismissed.