Romesh Lal and Others vs State and Others

Arun Kumar Goel, Judge.

This petition under section 561A Cr. P. C is directed against the proceedings initiated through challan pending in the Court of Munsiff, Judicial

Magistrate, 1st. Class, R. S. Pura, under Section 498A of R. P. C. In order to understand the situation brief facts of the case need to be noticed.

Petitioner Romesh Lal is married to Respondent No. 2 Mst. Sudesh Kumari. Their marriage was solemnised in the month of April, 1994 and they

have a daughter from this wedlock. Petitioners Faquir Chand and Vidya Devi are the parents of Romesh Lai. Petitioners Sardari Lal and Mst.

Pooro Devi are his uncle and aunt, and Sujjan Singh petitioner is the son of latter.

Further case as revealed from the record is that on 13th Feb. 1998, Smt. Sudesh Kumari Respondent No. 2, hereinafter referred to as the

complainant, lodged a complaint in writing at Police Station, Women Cell, Canal Road, Jammu, when she was accompanied by her father Tara

Chand. According to the complainant at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her dowry within their means. For one year her husband was

cordial to her. However, after the birth of the female child who at the time of making complaint was two and a half years old, all the respondents

started causing harassment as well as teasing her. This exercise was aimed at compelling and coercing her to bring more and more dowry from her

parents. Reason being that she had brought lesser dowry as compared to other girls married in the village. Miseries of the complainant did not end

here but at such times she was threatened by her husband arid was forcibly thrown out of her matrimonial home, with a direction to get more

dowry. 'Number of Panchayats were held for reconciliation. Petitioner No. 1 agreed to behave and took back the complainant in his company and

also assured to mend his was as per the case of the complainant. In this background lastly on 13.1.1998 in the evening, as per the complainant, she

was thrown out of her house by the respondents At such time she was asked to return only after having brought Rs. 20,000/, failing which there

was no need for her to return. Petitioner No. 1 further threatened to marry someone else

Faced with such circumstance; complaint was came to be lodged against at the respondents. After receipt of informatior police machinery

swung into action. Recorded statements of Tara Chand, father of the complaint, Kunti Kumari her mother, Satpal and Surban Kumar as well as

Gian Chand, last three persons are the residents of Village R. S Pura. So far as the statements of Numberdar and two above named persons are

concerned they reveal that at the time of marriage, father of the complainant had giver dowry to her as per his resources. They have further

supported the case of the complainant regarding panchayats having been held for settlement between husband and wife.

On other hand statements of the complainant and her parents are identical in terms and support her case.

With a view to sustain the case under section 498A RPC, it had to be primafacie demonstrated by the prosecutionthat the complainant was

subjected to cruelty by causing harassment to meet unlawful demands of the petitioners to bring money from her parents.

So far the allegations made regarding maltreatment of the complainant prior to 13.1.1998 is concerned, there is no specific evidence. Similarly

statements of all the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C are general in character without specifically attributing anything to any of the petitioners

in that behalf. So much so even the complainant as well as her parents have not said anything in particular regarding any such instance. In addition

to this on the question of punchayats having been held on a number of occasions earlier for settlement of disputes between the complainant and the

petitioner No. 1, there is nothing stated specifically by any of the witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. In case panchayats had infact been held, at

least some details thereof together with the names of participants from both sides would have been reflected in the statements of witnesses

examined during the course of investigation. As already observed there is not a word said in that behalf.

Again when a reference is made to the statements of witnesses examined during the investigation of this case by the police, it is clear that nothing

is specifically attributed to any of the petitioners except petitioner No. 1. There is nothing specifically pointed out against any of the petitioners

which may primafacie demonstrate that accepting all the allegations to be correct as recorded in the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.

P. C. was likely to result in the conviction of the petitioners.

While considering the case on the prayer of accused for quashing the proceedings under section 561A of Cr. P. C the peeping hole is very

narrow. Elaborate enquiry muchless dissection of the material brought by the police before the court is not permissible. However, prima facie case

accepting the statements as recorded has to be made out. And if after scrutinising the statements and other materials produced by the prosecution

before the trial court, such a case is not made out, this Court with a view to prevent the miscarriage of justice as well as for securing the ends

thereof would not hesitate but quash such proceedings.

For taking this view reference can usefully made to AIR 1966 S. C, R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab and AIR 1992 S. C. 604 State of

Haryana Vs. Ch. Bajan Lal and others.

When the present case is examined in the light of these two decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as on the basis of entire evidence

examined by the prosecution collected during investigation of the case, it is clearly evident that the prosecution has miserably failed to primafacie

out a case against any of the petitioners which may require trial. In addition to this further continuance of the proceeding in the court below in case

No. 30/Criminal, titled as State V/S Romesh Lal and others, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, R. S, Pura, under section 498A RPC

would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and court, therefore, liable to be quashed.

Consequently this petition is allowed and all proceedings in the said case are hereby quashed and setaside.