Surinder Singh and others vs Manjit Kaur

V.K. Bali, J.

Surinder Singh, husband of Manjit Kaur, his parents, Karnail Singh and Smt. Shanti as also his sister Devinder Kaur, through present petition filed by them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seek quashing of complaint, Annexure P1, instituted by Manjit Kaur under Sections 415/417/500/34/109 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also aftermath thereof i.e. the summoning order dated April 12, 1994, Annexure P2.

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that whereas, petitioner No. 1 is a government servant serving as Lecturer in Government College, Ludhiana, his father Karnail Singh has recently retired from a prestigious status being Head of the English department Khalsa College, Amritsar and his mother petitioner No. 3 is his wife. His sister petitioner No. 4 is also a Lecturer in Khalsa College, Amritsar. Petitioner Surinder Singh was married with respondent on April 20, 1986 according to Sikh rites.

She, however, after sometime moved an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was nullity. In her petition aforesaid she pleaded that petitioner No. 1 her husband was impotent and the marriage, therefore, had not been consummated. Her aforesaid petition, however, failed before the trial Court but this Court in appeal preferred by her allowed the same on August 20, 1993 by holding that petitioner No. 1 Surinder Singh was actually impotent. The decree aforesaid assumed finality as the same was not challenged further. It is thereafter that the respondentwife preferred a complaint under Sections 415/417/500/34/109/120B IPC against all the petitioners. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate, seized of the matter, summoned the petitioners on April 12, 1994 under aforesaid sections of the IPC. The allegations constituting various offences detailed above are that all the petitioners knew that petitioner No. 1 was impotent and they had fraudulently persuaded the respondent to marry him.

Mr. Giani, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2 but with regard to other petitioners i.e. mother and sister of the husbandpetitioner No. 1 it is being argued that they cannot be imputed with the conspiracy to marry their son and brother respectively knowing it fully well that petitioner No. 1 was impotent. This allegation is highly improbable and there can (sic) in the very nature of things, be hardly any evidence available to prove such a conspiracy, contends the learned counsel.

This Court was inclined to go into this question in detail and to express an opinion on the point stressed by the learned counsel one way or the other but after going through the reply filed in the matter, it is not thought proper at this stage to comment upon the merits of the point, noted above. It is evident from the complaint in question and the reply to the petition filed in this Court that allegations against all the petitioners are not only with regard to conspiracy of the mother and sister of the husband but it is also with regard to defamation of the complainant, narration of which shall be given hereinafter and if the complaint as a whole cannot be quashed against the petitioners, on whose behalf arguments have been raised, it will be an exercise in futility to go into the only question canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

A reading of the complaint, Annexure P1, and the preliminary evidence would reveal that the allegations of the complainant are that all the accusedpetitioners were fully aware at the time of marriage that they were making misrepresentation by giving false assurance to the complainant that petitioner No. 1 was and is potent as he was taking treatment for impotency even before his marriage. Besides this, other main allegation against the petitioners is that petitionerKarnail Singh had written letters to the father of the complainant by twisting his hand, showing these as anonymous ones, levelling serious character allegations against complainant with other persons and thereafter he wrote another letter to Inderjit Singh, who is brotherin law of complainant, levelling character allegations against the complainant with him. All these letters were written with mala fide intention by petitioner aforesaid with conspiracy of other petitioners just to defame the complainant and her family members which seriously affected the health and mind of the complainant and her parents. Her father suffered serious heart attack and has become chronic patient whereas her mother died due to such type of shocks given by the petitioners. It is further alleged in the complaint that on January 16, 1994 all the petitioners approached one Inder Singh son of Harnam Singh at his workshop situated at Plot No. 285, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar. His workshop is adjoining to the workshops of Brij Lal and Inderjit Singh Sohal brotherinlaw of the complainant. All the petitioners had shown to Inder Singh copy of medical certificate of petitioner No. 1 which contained false character allegations with Inderjit Singh Sohal as also the written reply filed by him in the petition u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They further stated that the complainant should withdraw her application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as new petition u/s 25 Hindu Marriage Act from the Court and required him to call the complainant and her father for compromise. Inder Singh aforesaid telephoned her father and as such the complainant along with her father and Harjit Singh visited his workshop where Brij Lal and Inderjit Singh Sohal were already present. All the petitioners required the complainant and her father to withdraw the aforesaid petitions otherwise they would further defame her in the way they have already done. On refusal of the complainant and her father to oblige them, all the petitioners again repeated that she had illicit relations with Inderjit Singh Sohal and they would take the similar defence in the Court as well in order to further defame and humiliate her. It is also alleged that it is due to intervention of Inderjit Singh etc. that the situation was saved and all the petitioners slipped away from the workshop.

In the appeal preferred by the complainantrespondent herein regarding divorce matter on the allegations of petitioner No. 1 with regard to bad character of the complainant, it was commented by this Court as follows :

"The (Complainant) is a postgraduate and was a student of her husband''s father, who is the Head of English Department of Khalsa College, Amritsar. The husband is also a postgraduate in English and is employed as a Lecturer. Theirs was an arranged marriage. The wife would not have withdrawn from the company of her husband if the circumstances had not compelled her to do so. The insinuation by the husband at the trial that the wife was having illicit relations with her brotherinlaw appears to be an after thought and due to frustration to malign her. The allegations that the wife had illicit relations with her brotherinlaw was not made in the written statement but was made at the trial. This further shows that the husband has tried to improve his version at the behest of legal ingenuity; otherwise there is no truth in it."

As mentioned above, the petitioners, on whose behalf the present matter is being contested, are also alleged to have defamed the complainant in the manner as detailed above and for which, some evidence, even though at the preliminary stage, has been recorded. In these circumstances, the complaint as a whole cannot be quashed against any of the petitioners. It is in these circumstances that it has been said that there is no necessity to go into the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.

Finding no merit in this petition, I dismiss the same.

In totality of the circumstances and, in particular, that the petitioners, on whose behalf the matter has been argued, happen to be ladies, one of them being a Lecturer in a College, it will be in the fitness of things if their personal appearance before the trial Judge is exempted. It is, thus, ordered that if these petitioners ask for exemption of their personal appearance, the same shall be granted by the trial Court subject, of course, to the conditions that the lawyer engaged by them shall appear on their behalf on each date of hearing as also that they shall come present in Court as and when required for some specific purpose and that the proceedings taken in their absence shall be binding upon them.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8th of August, 1995.