Harminder Singh And Ors. v. State Of Haryana And Anr.

1. Harminder Singh petitioner-1; along with his father Amar Singh, petitioner-2; his mother Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, petitioner 3; his maternal uncle Pritam Singh, petitioner-4 and his maternal uncle's son, Chuna, petitioner-5, has come to this court in criminal miscellaneous Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 162 dated 5.6.90, for offence Under Sections, 406/498A/120B. IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., at the instance of his wife, Smt. Satinder Kaur, respondent-2.

2. The case was registered on the basis of a complaint, Annexure P. The allegations in the impugned complaint, in brief, are that the marriage of Smt. Satinder Kaur was performed with petitioner-1 at village Fatehabad, District Ambala on 20-11-1983. At the time of marriage, a considerable dowry, detailed in Annexure A to the impuged complaint, was given by her parents. In all, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- was spent on the marriage. The very next day of marriage she found petitioner-4 making remarks, addressing petitioner 2, that if he had accepted the proposal made to him, he would have atleast received more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in dowry. She was thereafter maltreated and even given beating by petitioner 1 and his parents. They made demand for other articles. After the birth of a daughter, her parents, gave her further customary articles which did not satisfy her in-laws who made taunting remarks about these articles. With the passage of time, relations between the husband and wife deteriorated further and she was turned out of her matrimonial home by petitioner 1 and his parents, on one of such occasions, petitioner 5 caught hold of her from her long hair and with the connivance of her husband gave her beating. In the year 1986, her husband told her that she could stay in the matrimonial home only if she brought a motor-cycle. She was turned out of the house on a number of occasions during the years 1985 to 1988, but used to be rehabilitated by the intervention of the respectables. In 1987, she filed an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C for the grant of maintenance, in the Court of the Magistrate, but it with-drawn after assurances were given for good behaviour of the petitioners. In 1987, she approached the SHO for the registration of a criminal case, but it was also got compromised. Since the behaviour of her husband and his parents did not change, a Panchayat was convened in the year 1988, A writing was prepared, showing the return of dowry articles to her. It was agreed that these articles would remain with Sh. Harminder Singh, Advocate who was one of the members of the Panchayat. A petition Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was moved for the grant of divorce before the District Judge, Hissar. It was argued that the dowry articles would be returned to her after decree for divorce was passed. The petition moved before the District Judge was, how ever, dismissed on 24-12-1988, as an assurance had been given by her husband that he would take her back to his house. Again, on 26-12-1988, who was turned out of the matrimonial home, in her bare bearing clothes and since then, she has been living with her parents.

3. Annexure P3 is a copy of the petition filed by her Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Paragraph 4 thereof is to the effect that the dowry articles had been returned by patitioner 1 (Harminder Singh) to petitioner 2 (Satinder Kaur).

4. After reading the averments made in paragraph 13 of the impugned complaint and paragraph 4 of the divorce petition, the position that emerges is that the dowry articles were handed over to Sh. Harminder Singh, Advocate and they were to remain in trust with him till the decree for divorce was granted. In view of the rocitals in paragraph 4 of the divorce potition Annexure P3, he (Harminder Singh Advocate) would be deemed to have accepted the dowry articles on behalf of respondent 2 herein. The impugned complaint is significantly silent as to whom the articles were returned after the petition for divorce was dismissed. Unless there is an allegation of entrustment of dowry articles by Harminder Singh, Advocate to petitioner 1, the husband of Respondent 2, he could not be charged for criminal breach of trust. Whatever articles were received by any of the present petitioners, at the time of marriage had been handed over to Sh. Harminder Singh, Advocate under an agreement between the respondent 2 and the husband-petitioner. They cannot be hold liable for any criminal breach of trust with respect to the dowry articles. Since there is no allegation of further entrustment by Sh. Harminder Singh, Advocate to any of the present petitioners, no charge for an offence Under Section 406, IPC can be proved against them.

5. The allegation of cruelty relates to a period prior to the date of the institution of divorce petition Annexure P-3, i.e. 22.12.1988 and in view of the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P.C. they cannot be tried for those charges after expiry of period of limitation. The only charge that can possible be taken congnizance of by the Court against Harminder Singh alon is with respect to cruelty if any committed by him on 26-12-88, as alleged in paragraph 13 of the impugned complaint. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioners 2 to 5 for offences u/Sec 406/491/120B, IPC will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The same are hereby quashed. So far as offence Under Section 498A/IPC against Harminder Singh petitioner 1 is concerned with respect to the charge for his criminal Act of 26-12-88, the proceedings may continue. This criminal miscellaneous is allowed to that extent.