Krishna Wanti vs Shama Rani

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—This is a petition filed by Krishna Wanti and five others u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, summoning the petitioners as accused and for quashing all subsequent proceedings taken therein.

The relevant facts are that Shama Rani was married to Satish Kumar in March 1992. After their marriage they lived together but Shama Rani realised that Satish Kumar was not mentally sound. The petitioners were misbehaving with Shama Rani and she was turned out from the house. She filed a complaint with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was asserted that dowry articles were demanded and they were entrusted to all the petitioners and her husband. They have not been returned. The articles were demanded as consideration of marriage.

The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, after recording the preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioners and husband of Shama Rani with respect of offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence the present petition filed by Krishna Wanti and others.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners high-lighted the facts that as per the averments made, no case is made out and, therefore, the complaint, the order of summoning the petitioners and subsequent proceedings be quashed.

While exercising the powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings against an accused at the initial stage only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are without adding or substracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the present case, the necessary averments regarding entrustment of the articles to the petitioners and, misappropriating the same have been made. It has also been alleged that dowry articles were demanded any consideration for marriage, they were received by the petitioners and others at Mandi Gobindgarh at the time of marriage. In face of the specific averment it would be no gain saying to assert that no case is drawn as per averments made in the complaint. Consequent thereto, the assertions made that the complaint and the order summoning the petitioner should be quashed must fail.

In that event, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 1 is a cancer patient and very old. She is not keeping good health. Similar plea was urged on behalf of the petitioner No. 2. It was argued that their personal presence may be exempted. In normal circumstances, such a prayer should be made within the Trial Court who would consider such a request. But in the present case once it was pointed out that because of the age factors and the health of the petitioners 1 and 2 it is difficult for them to appear in Court, it would be in fairness to all that a direction is issued that the learned Trial Court, on proper application, if filed, will exempt the personal appearance of petitioners 1 and 2 during the course of Trial, with such condition as may be deemed appropriate.

With the observation, the petition fails and is dismissed.