Seema Devi & Others vs State Of H.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3567 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.77 of 2017 Reserved on: 13th July, 2021 Decided on : 5th August 2021

.

    Seema Devi & Others                                                   ..Petitioners

                                  Versus





    State of H.P. & Another                                           ...Respondents.
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 NO
    For the petitioner            :        Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate
    For the respondents           :        Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. A.G., Mr.
                           r               Ram Lal Thakur, Asstt. A.G., for

                                           respondent No.1.
                                           Mr. Anup Rattan,             Advocate       for
                                           respondent No.2.


                          THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.




    FIR No.        Dated        Police Station                   Sections
    20 of 2012     17.1.2012    Una, District Una, H.P.          498-A, 406, 34 IPC

Seeking quashing of above captioned FIR and further proceedings for

meeting cruelty and usurping the 'Streedhan' of the complainant, who was married in the accused's family, have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. On 17.1.2012, the complainant-respondent No.2 made a written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Una. She alleged that she was married to Manjeet Singh (son of petitioners No.3 and 4) on 14.6.2009. The marriage was arranged and fixed within a fortnight. A-1 Gurwara Singh (petitioner No.3), who is the father of Manjeet Singh, had told the complainant's family that his son resides in

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Canada. He had visited India for marriage and was unable to stay longer, and for that reason, they wanted to decide the marriage at an early date. The complainant further alleged that before marriage Manjeet Singh assured her to take along to Canada. On this assurance, her parents had agreed to the marriage. After the

.

marriage, relations were cordial for a month. At that time, the complainant has done her B.Sc. with B.Ed. She was working on a contract basis on a self-financed project in Una. Her husband asked her to leave this job by assuring her that he

would take her along to Canada. In between, her husband got the marriage registered in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Una, and procured her passport to travel to Canada. After a month of the wedding, her husband started

complaining about lesser jewelry and dowry.

3. The complainant told her husband that her parents had given dowry according to their capacity, on which he gave beatings to her. At that time, her A-

1 Gurwara Singh, father-in-law, A-2 Champa Devi, mother-in-law, A-3, Seema

Devi, A-4, Prem Chand, A-5, Bholi Devi, A-6, Dev Raj A-7, Gurmail Kaur A-8, Sarjeevan A-9, Baby A-10, Ashok Kumar and A-11 Suman Devi were present. All these people taunted her for not bringing dowry as per their capacity. Her mother-

in-law and father-in-law also taunted her that at the wedding, they were not given proper treatment. In between, they also gave her beatings. The complainant informed her parents about the same. On the next day, i.e., 6.8.2009, her husband

left for Canada. On reaching Canada, he informed her on the phone that he has married in Canada and would never return to India, and she would not be allowed

to live in peace in her in-laws till she brings appropriate dowry and gold. The complainant further alleged that now her husband is outside India and is not

paying her money. The complainant further stated that due to consummation of marriage, she gave birth to a son on 24.2.2010. She further stated that on the birth of the child, no member of her in-laws visited her.

4. Before that, on 25.10.2009, all these persons had thrown her away from their house and had kept her passport, marriage certificate, etc., with them. Despite repeated requests, they did not return her documents. The complainant further stated that she is residing with her parents from 25th October 2009 till date. She further stated that when she visited her office, her father-in-law would stop her and say that he is retired from the police and knows the law very well. He

also threatened that if she makes any complaint against them, they will not let her and her family live in peace. Her father-in-law also wrote dirty letters to defame her. He also complained against her in the Panchayat. She further stated that the Women Commission has also called her father-in-law on three occasions, and

.

even in such meetings, they had hurled abuses at her and threatened her to take back her complaint.

5. On these allegations, she sought legal action against all the accused

persons. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above. After completing the investigation, the officer in charge of the Police Station, Una, filed a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., in the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una.

6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. As evident from order-sheet dated 24.1.2017, the matter

was adjourned to 7.3.2017 for consideration on charge in case RBT No.239-II-

13/12.

7. Challenging the FIR mentioned above, order taking cognizance, issuance of summons, All the accused except the husband has come up before this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner No.10 Ashok Kumar (A-10) died, and his name was deleted from the array of the petitioner.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING.

8. Mr. Jagan Nath learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over one communication, which reveals that up to March 2018, a sum of 19,984.35 U.S.

Dollars was paid to the child. It further reveals that another sum of 67,000/- U.S. Dollars was further paid to the child in 2018. Apart from that, another sum of 4,000/- U.S. Dollars was also paid on March 20, 2018. A further sum of 4000/- U.S. Dollars after March 21, 2018, onwards. This order, dated April 2, 2018, is under the signature of the Court at Ontario in case NO.FS-16-0094-00. Learned counsel for the complainant-second respondent does not dispute this Court decree passed by the Court of Canada.

9. Around Rs. 72 Lacs have already been paid for the maintenance of the child. A sum of USD 60,000/- approximately are also being paid. This payment

part remains undisputed, and on that, it has nothing to do with the quashing of FIR.

10. In the FIR, the complainant stated that she had agreed to the marriage on the assurance by the accused Manjeet Singh that he would take her to Canada. In

.

the application itself, she explicitly stated that the marriage had taken place on 14.6.2009, and the accused had left for Canada on 6.8.2009. Thus, he had stayed with the complainant for around 1½ months, and in between, she conceived. A

perusal of the FIR further reveals that accused Gurwara Singh had impressed upon the complainant's family that the boy has to return to Canada and wants early marriage. Consequently, the return of the accused Manjeet Singh on 6.8.2009 is

not something, which was not on the complainant's notice. Even otherwise, a long absence from a place of work leads to various consequences more significantly of the loss of Job. Given this, the allegations that the accused had left Canada on

account of lesser dowry are meaningless. The factum that accused No.1 Manjeet

Singh has already paid a considerable amount of money for the maintenance for his son and apart from monthly maintenance, which is also huge even in Indian standards, would point out that there cannot be any element of lesser dowry,

which appears to be an afterthought to involve the provisions of Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Furthermore, when the accused was financially well off, and the complainant had agreed to marry knowingly that he lives in Canada, and even she

would also be going with him; to imply that the allegations of dowry leveled after 2½ years of the wedding are nothing but an afterthought to fill up the ingredients

to make the case a cognizable offense to register the FIR.

11. Other than the husband, all the relatives have filed the present petition,

including the father-in-law and mother-in-law. A perusal of FIR reveals that all of them taunted her for not meeting the demand of dowry. But hypothetically, even if the complainant's family had given any dowry, the relatives had nothing to gain. Thus, the possibility of framing them in a criminal case cannot be ruled out to put pressure on the husband, Manjeet Singh. Thus, the mere allegations that in their presence, father-in-law and mother-in-law had taunted the complainant would not at all make out any case against them. Even as per the complainant, her husband was not present, and he had already left for Canada on 6th August 2009. This incident a day before Manjeet Singh leaving India for Canada. Once the wife was

supposed to settle down in Canada, Manjeet did not need to keep dowry articles in India. Thus, even if these allegations are accepted to be accurate and correct on their face value, it still does not make any case against these relatives.

12. So far as the allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are

.

concerned, these are too general. The intention and conduct of the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband prima facie make these allegations false and doubtful on its face. Per the contents of the application, which led to the registration of

FIR, the complainant herself stated that immediately after marriage, the accused got her passport made and got the marriage registered. It means that the complainant was not having any passport at the time of marriage. In the year

2009, making of passport was not as easy as in the present time; instead, it was a very tedious process. Accused must have spent his entire vacation getting the marriage registered and making a passport for his newly wedded wife. The

conduct of the accused and his parents in fulfilling their promise by getting her

passport and registering the marriage proves that the marriage was not performed to terminate the same in between.

13. Furthermore, due to this wedding, the complainant becomes pregnant,

which would also show the intention of Manjeet Singh, her husband, to raise the family. Since Manjeet Singh was to move back to Canada, the pregnancy part must have the tacit approval of her parents because getting a visa would have

taken time. Given the overall conduct of the complainant's husband, her father-in- law, and mother-in-law, nowhere leads to any inference or points out towards any

action, which would amount to breaking their promises or deceiving or cheating her. Thus, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as gospel truth, they do not

make any case to launch a prosecution. Instead, the possibility of the complainant leveling allegations to make out a case for cognizable offenses so that FIR is registered and subsequently used as a settlement tool cannot be ruled out.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC:

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that [30] "It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a

large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. [32] Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not

.

properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. [33]. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and

punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of

criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The

allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in

different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the

husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely

long and painful."

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Para 28, Hon'ble

Supreme Court holds that "We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these

appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled."

STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:

.

16. In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon'ble

Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process

need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The Court holds, "... This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of

the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said

to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to

continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under section 482 of the Code

can be exercised.

17. In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full

Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the High Court need not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON JURISPRUDENCE OF QUASHING:

18. The law is almost settled by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the FIR and the investigation do not make out any case or the prosecution is inherently and patently illegal, and the matters that fulfill the criteria for quashing, the High Court resorting to S. 482 CrPC can quash such FIR and consequent proceedings. In R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, a three-member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, "[6]. ...It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to

quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with

.

the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where

the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an

accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar

against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may

also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence

arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case, it

would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person.

A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In

exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable

.

appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal

proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR

54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), NripendraBhusan Roy v. GobinaBandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v. SivaramaSubramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 : (AIR 1925 Mad 39)."

19. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre,

1988 (1) SCC 692, a three judges' bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds

"[7]. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for

the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to

permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of

an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking

into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

CONCLUSION:

20. FIR was registered in the year 2012 against almost every family members, in all 11 persons, who are facing criminal prosecution. A perusal of the FIR does not make out any case and as such this Court would certainly resort to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and deem it appropriate to quash this FIR. Its continuation may cause grave injustice to the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the catena of case law, but since

on the appraisal of the allegations, this Court is satisfied that FIR deserves to be quashed, as such there is no need to refer to those judgments.

21. An analysis of the entire allegations and the investigation does not contain legally admissible evidence and thus, does not make out any prima facie case

.

against the petitioners.

22. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful

purpose whatsoever.

23. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court

challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Charge-

sheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been

entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."

24. Given above, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash

the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed qua the petitioners, and all the consequential proceedings qua the petitioners are also

quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioners are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

25. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.

August 05, 2021 (ps)