Subash Kumar Sethi vs State of U.T.Chandigarh

A.L. Bahri, J.—Subhash Kumar Sethi has moved this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings initiated against him on F. 1. R. No. 158 dated June 1, 1987 and charge framed under sections 406, 498A, 120B, Indian Penal Code, read with sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Madhu Bala complainant was married to Satwant Rai Verma on February 27, 1985. The present petitioner Subhash Kumar Sethi was a mediator for arranging this marriage. Thereafter the relations between the spouses became strained and as per allegations made in the first information report lodged by Madhu Bala, several articles of dowry including cash was demanded. It is not necessary to give the details of these demands, as the only part attributed to the present petitioner is that after the dispute had arisen, the parties went to his house and it was during the talks that the present petitioner supported motherinlaw of Madhu Bala. Statements of witnesses Raj Pal, Jaswant, Ravinder Singh and Naresh recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, have been read over as these persons had also gone to the house of the present petitioner. Their evidence is to the effect that the petitioner had stated that dowry given was less and they would be bound to pay more. From this assertion, it was sought to be argued that the present petitioner had abetted offences under sections 406, 498A, Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge was also framed by the Magistrate on July 8, 1988 in this respect. Annexure P. 1 is the first information report; P. 2 is the charge framed and P. 3 is the order deciding to frame charge.

From the material on the record, prima facie no offence against the present petitioner Subhash Kumar Sethi is made out. No doubt, even on the basis of strong suspicion, a charge could be framed. However, from the nature of the evidence referred to above, there is no question of any suspicion arising in this respect. It cannot be said that he abetted the commission of any of the offences referred to above. Demands, if any, of dowry articles had already been made by the other accused and with respect to articles of dowry which had already been entrusted with them and not returned, it would be breach of trust. The assertion in the evidence does not indicate that he asked the coaccused to demand dowry articles from Madhu Bala or her relations.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The charge framed against the present petitioner to that extent only is quashed.