Nirmala vs State of Haryana

S. D. Bajaj, J.

Husband respondent No. 1 got married to petitioner No. 1 wife on 151987. Petitioner No. 1 was not welcomed in her matrimonial home, subjected to cruelty and bereft of her Stridhan therein after marriage. Petitioner No. 2 Sabi Ram father of the bride Nirmala petitioner No. 1 lodged F.I.R. No. 81 dated April 5, 1988 in Police Station Ellenabad against respondent No. 1 in this regard and respondent No. 1 is facing prosecution in criminal Court at Hissar on its basis under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which is fixed for June 6, 1990.

Respondent No. 1 is also being prosecuted at the instance of petitioner No. 1 in criminal complaint No 28C dated 23rd April 1988 for misappropriation/criminal breach of trust in respect of dowry articles.

Vide Annexure P. 3 petitioner No. 1 was granted against respondent No. 1 an exparte decree of divorce on 581988 in respect of the matrimonial alliance dated May 1, 1987 and also a money decree for Rs. 20,000/ as cash market value of her Stridhan ornaments weighing 67 grams of gold of which she was allegedly deprived by respondent No. 1 within seven months after her marriage with him.

Concealing all these facts from the Court, respondent No I filed against his wife petitioner No. 1 and her relationspetitioners Nos. 2 to 7, on 25th August, 1988 complaint Annexure P. 4 for cheating him of four Tolas of gold ornaments and 10 Tolas of silver ornaments at the time of his marriage with petitioner No. 1 on May 1, 1997 by giving out the age of petitioner No. 1 as 1819 years instead of actual 35 years and withholding the information of her being a divorcee from Rameshwar.

Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 have all jointly filed Criminal Misc. No. 5446M of 1989 in this Court for quashing the complaint Annexure P. 4 on grounds of its being an abuse of the process of the Court as counter blast to action taken by petitioners No. 1 and 2 against respondent No. 1 inordinate delay in filing it and for reasons of suppression of real facts from the Court.

I have heard Shri Atul Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri B. S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No. 1, Shri R. N. Lohan, Advocate, for the Staterespondent No. 2 and carefully perused the records.

The factum of performance of marriage of respondent No. 1 with petitioner No. 1 on 151987 and the making over of gold and silver ornaments mentioned in the complaint to the wife by the husband at the time of their marriage is duty conceded in the complaint. The gifts made by the husband to the wife at the time of their marriage acquire the character of being her Stridhan. After marriage these articles cannot be said to be in trust with the wife; for which she is obliged to account for even to the husband after marriage. Neither Section 420 nor Section 406/169 of the Indian Penal Code are, therefore, attracted for application on given facts. Complaint Annexure P. 4 does not, therefore, disclose the commission of any offence by the respondents named in the complaint; who are petitioners before this Court. The complaint Annexure P. 4 is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

Delay in filing the complaint from May 1, 1987 to August 25, 1988 also speaks volumes against the complainant husband arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the present petition. More so, when all the material facts about exparte decree for divorce and for recovery of Rs. 20,000/ as cash value of dowry articles allegedly misappropriated by respondent No. 1 and the pendency of the prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against, respondent No. 1 were not disclosed to the Court. Complaint Annexure P. 4 is obviously much too delayed counter blast to the litigation filed by wife and her father against husband respondent No. 1 and therefore, an abuse of the process of the Court. The ratio of observations made in Gurmeet Kaur v. Narinder Singh, Vol. LXXX1978 PLR 507 and Mangal Singh v. Rajinder Singh and others, Volume LXXX1978 PLR 658 regarding annulment of marriage and of the husband being impotent is not attracted for application on given facts obtaining in the present case.

In result, Criminal Misc. No. 5446M of 1989 succeeds and is allowed. Complaint Annexure P. 4 and the subsequent action based thereon is all quashed.