Mangal Singh vs Rajinder Singh and others

A.S. Bains, J.—Mangal Singh has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated January 11, 1977, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide which his complaint under sections 415, 417 and 420, Indian Penal Code, was dismissed u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and also the order dated October 25, 1977, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Chandigarh, vide which his revision petition filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed.

It is alleged in the petition that a complaint under sections 413, 417 and 420, Indian Penal Code, was filed against the respondents in the Court of Shri M.S. Nagra, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the ground that the respondents cheated the petitioner and there by dishonestly induced him to deliver articles of dowry and cash along with his daughter in marriage with Rajinder Singh, accused (respondent No. 1), who was impotent before the marriage ; that this fact was in the knowledge of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 and they never disclosed the fact of impotency of respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, rather all the six accused-respondent gave the assurance that respondent No. 1 was quite hale and hearty and fit for marriage and that with these false assurances the petitioner was cheated. Copy of the complaint is attached with the petition as Annexure P-1.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, after recording the preliminary evidence dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner filed revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which also met the same fate. It is in this situation that the present petition has been filed.

Both the learned Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge have observed that no case is made out u/s 420, Indian Penal Code but a case is made out for issuing process u/s 417, Indian Penal Code. But since the complaint was time barred in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 469, Criminal Procedure Code, the complaint was dismissed.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Inderjit Malhotra that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the complaint on the technical ground of limitation and that a case u/s 420, Indian Penal Code, is also made out. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The preliminary evidence recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly shows that case is made out u/s 420, Indian Penal Code, also Mangal Singh P.W. 8, stated that the boy''s family took dowry of Rs. 10,000/- in cash and jewellery etc. and besides it a huge amount was spent on marriage and in fact the factum of impotency of the boy was within their knowledge and that it was assured by the respondents that the boy was young, healthy and fit for marriage. The factum of impotency was known to the boy and also to his parents. He was not a teenaged boy, but was quite mature being 32 years old at the time of marriage. The observation of the Courts below that there was no allegation regarding the dishonest inducement of jewellery and property is also erroneous. In para 12 of the complaint it is alleged as under:--

That all the accused thus deprived the complainant of his valuable property and induced him by fraudulent intention to part with the articles, jewellery and cash etc. received by the accused by way of dowry and presents, knowing fully well that the accused No. 1 was impotent.

Admittedly, the marriage between respondent No 1 and the daughter of the petitioner was annulled on September 2, 1976 and not on September 2, 1974, as observed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate in his order and the complaint is well within time from the date of order of annulment of the marriage. Even if it was filed beyond time, there was sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The matrimonial Court has given the verdict that respondent No. 1, Rajinder Singh, was impotent at the time of marriage and on this basis the marriage was annulled. It is a matter of common knowledge that dowry is a great menace to the society and especially the lower and middle class people have to suffer a lot in arranging dowry at the time of marriage of their daughters. In the present case, when the boy was impotent, it was highly improper for the respondents to arrange for the marriage of an impotent person with a healthy girl and also to induce the parents of the girl for dowry. In this situation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, could condone the delay u/s 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is in the following terms:--

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.

In my considered view, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

A Preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Gopal Mahajan, learned Counsel for the respondents, that a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not competent in the circumstances of the case and that there has been no abuse of the process and the Courts were competent to pass the impugned orders. No doubt, that the Courts were competent, but in the present case the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an arbitrary order dismissing the complaint u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The Courts are expected to pass just orders in order to secure the ends of justice, I find no merit in the preliminary objection as the petition is maintainable for securing the ends of justice because no other remedy is available to the petitioner. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was impotent at the time of his marriage with Kulwant Kaur, daughter of the petitioner and the marriage had been annulled by Shri H.L. Randev, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on September 2, 1976.

No other point is urged.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. My observations in this order will not effect the merits of the case.