Som Dutt vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Som Dutt and Gogi, the present petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the complaint dated 13.2.1996 Annexure P.1, summoning order dated 22.3.96 Annexure P.2, as the same are absolutely illegal, unlawful and complete misuse and abuse of the judicial process.

Smt. Chhina Devi alias Sunita, respondent No. 2 was married with one Vijay Kumar on 13.10.1992. It may also be mentioned at the first instance that Smt. Chhina Devi alias Sunita filed the complaint against 11 persons. Respondents No. 4 to 11 i.e. eight persons were found innocent and they were not summoned by the learned Magistrate. Only summons were issued to Vijay Kumar, husband, Somdut and Smt. Gogi parents of Vijay Kumar. In para No. 4 of the complaint, the following allegations have been levelled against the petitioners :

"That all the accused united their hands to torture the complainant and all the accused really tortured the complainant and asked complainant to bring more dowry and also compelled her to bring cash amount of Rs. 25,000/ from her parents, which in fact was not within the means of the complainant. The accused persons even attempted to kill the complainant on 23 occasions, and they told the complainant openly that they will not keep the complainant in their matrimonial home. The accused persons even did not care when the complainant was pregnant and she was not given the proper food even and was compelled to do hard work, though it was painful for the complainant to do the work, but the complainant was not allowed to take rest and rather, the accused Vijay Kumar used to give beatings to the complainant as the accused Vijay Kumar is in the habit of taking liquor. The complainant was turned out from her matrimonial home and was not allowed to take her articles. All the dowry articles given to the complainant by her parents, relations, friends etc. are in the custody and possession of the accused persons. The accused were duty bound to return the same, but they did not care to return the same."

The complaint as well as the summoning order have been challenged by the present two petitions by specifically alleging in para No. 6 of the petition that they are actually living separate in a temple for the last 30 years and respondent No. 2 got married his son and he is not even residing with the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the time of the marriage even their son was not living with them and in these circumstances, there was no question of entrustment much less of cruelty and that the complaint against them was nothing but a sheer concoction. Strange enough, this part of the case has not been rebutted at all by Smt. Chhina Devi who through her counsel stated in this court on 22.4.1997 that she was not interested to file reply. In this manner, the allegations of the petitioners that they were residing separately from their son for the last 30 years and that they had no connection with their son remains proved.

In AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 : 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and ors. it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as follows :

"In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art. 226 or under S. 482 of Cr.PC may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified."

The first guide line in this case will be very relevant. I have already reproduced above the material allegations of the complaint, if those allegations are read and are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, those allegations even do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Even the guide line No. 5 can be applied in the present case. The allegations of the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Merely because the petitioners are the parents of Vijay Kumar, they cannot be dragged into the criminal proceedings.

In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The complaint Annexure P.1 and summoning order Annexure P.2 are quashed visavis the petitioners. Directions are given to the Magistrate not to proceed against the petitioners in the complaint. Now complaint will only proceed against Vijay Kumar.