Miss Varuna Kochar vs State And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 682 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner, named as accused in a First Information Report, invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings.

2. The complainant Vandana Kochar, (respondent in the proceedings, hereafter "the wife") married Rakesh Kochar, the petitioner's brother (hereafter "the husband") on 3.3.1995, at NOIDA. A minor daughter was born out of the wedlock. The wife alleged that soon after marriage, her-in-laws started harassing her for jewellery and dowry, and, upon their provocation, the husband also threatened to divorce her. The husband and the Petitioner filed a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the complainant from entering the matrimonial home, in 1996. By that time, the complainant had gone to her parental house; the suit alleged that the complainant was intimidating the present petitioner and the husband. Upon a joint application moved by the petitioner, the husband and the complainant, the suit was compromised. The complainant Vandana Kochar recorded her consent and in terms of the compromise, the disputes were settled, by order of Court.

3. According to the petitioner the compromise recorded that the husband and the complainant were living separately for two weeks prior to the settlement and the complainant regretted her behavior. It was further stated that the couple agreed to live separately, away from in-laws of the husband, including the petitioner.

4. After the disposal of the suit, the complainant alleged that she continued to live in the parental home and the husband made no attempt to resume co-habitation. According to the complaint lodged with the Crime against Women Cell, several efforts were made in September and October, 1996 to see that the husband took her back but he stubbornly evaded and also refused to receive a list of articles which allegedly were continued to be withheld in the matrimonial home.

5. According to the complainant the parties were further called upon before the Cell and the list of the articles was given to the husband, he refused to sign it and stated that he was willing to return the articles which was insured by the wife with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant insisted that she would take back the articles as per the list.

6. The complainant has further stated before the Cell that she was coerced by the husband to accept the allegations made against her. The husband had threatened to leave the complainant and her daughter if she did not accept the allegations and agree to the compromise decree. However even after the compromise the husband failed to take the complainant back. On the strength of all these allegations, the complainant once again approached the police, which eventually lodged the FIR against the husband, and others, including the Petitioner. The complainant alleged that on 7.8.1996 her father-in-law published a public notice in the newspaper 'Statesman' thereby disowning the husband. The complainant also stated that her brother-in-law and her husband fraudulently obtained her signatures on insurance papers.

7. During the course of investigations, the accused approached Court for anticipatory bail. In one of the orders, on 06.09.1997, the learned Additional Session Judge observed thus:

After the jewellery was handed over to the complainant she was robbed of her jewellery by the occupants of two cars. Her allegations are that the accused Subhash and Rakesh were involved in that robbery. However the learned Counsel for the accused submits that the accused persons have made a representation to the DIG police, Meerut Range being the allegations are false and FIR of the alleged robbery has been registered in Noida. So far as the present case is concerned the jewellery was handed over to the complainant and in subsequent to that something happens, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. Other dowry articles had already been handed over the Complainant by the accused persons before the IO. However, the Complainant submits that complete dowry articles have not been returned. In any case it is not possible to decide the claim of the entire dowry articles and the entire jewellery while deciding this bail application.

8. The Petitioner urges that the complainant after marriage used to misbehave with the husband's family members, she always insisted that her husband should throw out his aged parents from the house. The complainant also threatened to implicate her in-laws in false criminal cases in order to pressurize them to leave the house. The Petitioner urged that fed up with the behavior of the complainant, she and her brother, the husband filed a suit for permanent injunction; the complainant realized her mistakes and a Compromise deed was filed; the suit was decreed in its terms.

9. The Petitioner states and Counsel urges on her behalf that after the investigation by the CAW Cell nothing incriminating was found against her and the Cell did not insist that her name should be included in the FIR. However her name was included. The Petitioner urges that the FIR does not disclose her role in commission of offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. It is contended that the FIR against her has been filed merely because she was a party to the suit for permanent injunction.

10. It is contended on behalf of the complainant these were certain acts of cruelty mentioned in the FIR against the Petitioner. The Petitioner tortured the complainant, snatched her jewellery and constantly harassed her for dowry. Counsel urged that the Petitioner had a role in provoking the husband against the complainant, she said that she could get the couple divorced "in no time". The petitioner, on several occasions, taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and during the complainant's pregnancy also sought to deny her nutritious diet.

11. The above narrative shows that the Petitioner's brother married the complainant; the couple lived in the joint family home of the husband. Relations soured; the Petitioner and the husband sought a restraint order (through a suit for injunction) against the complainant - who was visiting her parents at that time - from returning to the matrimonial home. The suit was compromised. According to the complainant, despite the compromise, the husband did not let her return either to the matrimonial home, or set up a new residence.

12. The records of the Court below were summoned for consideration. It is true that the FIR and complaint does mention involvement of the Petitioner, who was living at the time in the joint family home. Yet, two important features also exist. One, the Petitioner and complainant were parties to a suit, which was compromised. The terms of the compromise, so far as the Petitioner is concerned, remain undisputed. Two, in the subsequent application to the police, and the report of the CAW Cell - which is part of the record, no role suggestive of cruelty which can amount to an offence, was made out. Whatever be the motivations of the husband, and the other co-accused, as against them, the allegations are more specific. Even if all the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken to be true, the Petitioner cannot be said to have committed cruelty or acts of cruelty of such degree as would have reasonably driven the complainant to commit suicide or cause grave danger to her life, limb or health.

13. As regards the offence, under Section 406, the materials existing nowhere specify whether the Petitioner was at all involved in the alleged misappropriation. The role attributed is primarily of the other co-accused.

14. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be resorted to, in order to secure the ends of justice; it can be used, in given circumstances, to quash criminal proceedings. Lately, a tendency has emerged to set the criminal law into motion, either to settle scores, or to seek "quick fix" solutions to essentially civil disputes. This has been deprecated by the Supreme Court, (G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. ; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC Ltd. ) which has held that in such cases, the Court should invoke its power and quash criminal proceedings.

15. In the above circumstances, this is a fit case for invoking the inherent powers of the Court. Proceedings in FIR No. 561/97 P.S. Trilok Puri, as far as it concerns the Petitioner are hereby quashed. However, this order shall not be construed as a reflection on the merits so far as the other co-accused are concerned.

16. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Records of the trial Court shall be returned forthwith. Order dusty.