Sharad Dutt And Ors. vs Kiran And Anr.
1993 Latest Caselaw 131 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) This petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for quashing the complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioners and the order dated 20.1.92 by which learned Mm summoned the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC.

(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

(3) The respondent Smt. Kiran was married to the first petitioner Sharad Dutt on 9.12.84. Petitioners 2,3 and 4 are the mother, uncle and wife of the uncle respectively of the 1st petitioner. In the complaint the allegations are that at the time of marriage, parents of the respondent provided all necessary how; hold articles besides jewellary worth about Rs. 55,000.00 . But expectation of the petitioner were very high. Petitioner No.1 is employed in Door Darshan where he is stated to & busy in work from 9.00 Am to 10-11 Pm while the respondent is a teacher in J.D.Tytler School. There were taunts given to the respondent by petitioners 2 to 4 while petitioner No.1 .deprived her of any meeting time, being away from home for 12 to 14 hours. Therefore, her life name miserable. On account of the humiliating treatment and the taunts given to her by the first petitioner in the last week of June, 1985 at night, "Pack up your things and get out of the house, I will get taxi tomorrow morning. Whatever the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are saying is correct and what your parents and brothers have given to us in the said expenditure of Rs, 2,40.000.00 approximately," she left matrimonial home. She approached the Indian Women Welfare Association, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on 24.6.86 for .saving her married life. Members of the Association visited the matrimonial home for reconciliation but in vain. They also got her dowry articles restored to her on 3.4.87 in spite of the resistance of petitioner No.3 and a precondition for consent to give divorce. They even compelled her to return the Mangalsutra and ear tops. A sum ofRs. 14,000.00 was agreed to be returned by the petitioners because a loan of Rs. 4.000/ - was given by her brother at the time of reception of the marriage and Rs. 10,000.00 being presented to her at the time of marriage.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to a writing dated 8.4.87 on the letter head of the Indian Women Welfare Association which is signed by the respondent, her brother Arun Jaitley and some office bearers of the Association. It recites, "Today on 8.4.87 at 10 Am at L-51, Kirti Nagar, Sh. Sharad Dutt S/o Late Sh. Vishnu Chander who had some misunderstanding with his wife Smt. Kiran D/o Sh. Kishan Chand Ji, E-60, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Iii, New Delhi, after few days of the rnarriage. The marriage. had taken place on 9.12.84. The wife is residing with her father since June, 1985. All the efforts through the Association having failed, today in the presence of the officials of the Association and the undermentioned persons, Smt. Kiran had taken back all dowry articles belonging to her. A cheque ofRs. 14,000.00 had been given in the name of the Association which will be given to Smt. Kiran at the time of the divorce. Now nothing remains due nor anybody will file a case against the other. Istridhan including everything had been taken back by her. ' From the above writing, it is quite clear that in the presence of the office holders of the Women Welfare Association, respondent had received all her dowry articles and she said that nothing more remained due. In spite of that she again started harassing the petitioners saying that she had not been given her MANGALSUTRA. Then on 4.8.1988 she received one Mangalsutra in the office of the Acp, Anti-dowry Cell from petitioner No.1. But it is not understood why she mentioned in this writing that she had received the same without prejudice to her right to recover the list of her jewellary presented to her by in-laws at the time of her marriage. The report of the anti-dowry cell (Annexure C at page 19) also indicates that the enquiries conducted by them indicated that there was no evidence of the commission of offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC.

(5) It is rather strange that despite having recovered everything allegedly given in dowry and having executed a receipt in the presence of the office holders of the Women Welfare Association, the respondent is not satisfied and rather she still has harassed the petitioners by filing the present complaint. I am, therefore, of the view that the basis of such a complaint was not called for. Therefore, the complaint and the order passed by learned Magistrate are hereby quashed.