Ram Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.377 dated 09.10.2014 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶2In brief, the facts are that respondent No.2 registered the FIR (supra) against the petitioners herein, who was married to Sushil Kumar son of petitioners No.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 alleging therein that out of her wedlock with Sushil Kumar, a female child was born. After three months of marriage, accused started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and for not giving a car in the marriage. When she was not able to fulfill their demands, petitioners had thrown her out of the matrimonial house on 13.04.2014. She made a phone call to the police control room and in front of police officials, her maternal uncle told that they will settle the matter amicably. Thereafter, her maternal uncle brought her to his house where she stayed overnight and next morning, she w will be settled were called n accommodation two other house of times after g In August, she said period, pet and when she c about her husb soon. Thereaf received a num told her to get for expenses of her grandmothe was not allowed

¶5During th and the cause o

¶6Learned been falsely imp thorough inves column No.2 an of respondent petitioners hav application file

was sent back to her matrimonia amicably in the presence of her nor the matter was settled, n on the pretext of getting the h es as well. Petitioners also broug giving her beatings and obtained came to her paternal home to c titioners in connivance with eac called her husband, his phone cam band, petitioners informed her t fter, she stayed at her matrimon mber of calls from her husband, w admitted their daughter in a rep f the daughter. It was also alleg er after giving her final exams in d to meet her daughter. he pendency of the instant peti f action survives only qua petitio counsel for the petitioners inter a plicated in the present case. In t tigation, the police found petit nd the challan was presented on No.2. However, vide imp ve been summoned to face tri ed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. b

al house by saying that the matt r parents. But neither her paren rather they arranged a rente house repaired whereas they hav ght her to court complex a numb d her signature on fake affidavit celebrate rakhi festival and durin ch other sent her husband abroa me to be switched off. On askin that her husband will come bac nial home for two months. Sh who assured her to come back an puted school and also sent mone ged that her daughter went to me n March, 2011 and since then, sh ition, petitioner No.1 has expire oners No.2 and 3. alia contends that petitioners hav the FIR (supra), after conducting tioners innocent and put them nly against Sushil Kumar husban ugned order dated 23.01.201 ial as additional accused on th by the prosecution. It is furth ter nts ed ve ber ts. ng ad ng ck he nd ey eet he ed ve g a in nd 7, he contended that husband started and since respo day, petitioners respondent No

09.01.2009 and Gurucharan Pa levelled by re

09.10.2014 of g The allegations of date, time a petitioners No. from their mov upon the notice Furthermore, on was got conduc allegations leve they were found

¶7Per contr No.2 contended PW-1 has spec the allegations summoned to f FIR (supra) are deserves to be d

after few months of marriage, d demanding their share and Rs.5 ondent No.2 along with her hu s gave Rs.1.5 lakhs to respond o.2 along with her husband le d started living in a rented acc ark, New Model Town, Ludhia spondent No.2 in the FIR (s giving beatings to her for deman levelled in the FIR are vague an nd place of alleged incident of 1 and 2 have already disowne vable and immovable properties. e published in the newspaper d n the complaint made by the p cted by the Superintendent of P elled by respondent No.2 agains d innocent. ra, learned State counsel and the d that respondent No.2 while cifically named the petitioners a levelled in the FIR (supra) and face trial. It is also contended t e specific against the petitioners dismissed.

respondent No.2 along with h 5 lakhs to start their own busine usband was creating ruckus eve dent No.2. After taking mone eft the house of petitioners o commodation at House No.340 ana and therefore, the allegation upra), which was registered o nd of dowry are totally frivolou nd omnibus as there are no detai f demanding dowry. Furthermor d their son and respondent No In this regard, reliance is place dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure P-2 etitioner No.1, a detailed enqui Police (Investigation) wherein th t petitioners were found false an e counsel appearing for responde appearing in the witness box as accused and duly corroborate therefore, they have rightly bee that the allegations levelled in th and therefore, the instant petitio her ess ry ey, on 07, ns on us. ils re, o.2 ed 2). ry he nd ent as ed en he

¶8Having h of the case, th appearing for th the FIR (supra) indicates that reference of the formed the bas involve the enti the husband an the matter, cog near and dear r to be specific a Supreme Court speaking throug "2 are Ku ref me ma ma tak aft obs Pr ma

heard learned counsel for the par his Court finds merit in the a he petitioners. The allegations ) are general, vague and omnibu no specific role is attributed eir names mentioned in the com sis for registration of the FIR ire family members in the domes nd wife and therefore, without al gnizance against them is not jus relatives of the husband of the c and not omnibus and vague. A t in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. Stat gh Justice Gyan Sudha Misra has

¶20Coming to the facts of this ca e perused, it is apparent that umari Geeta Mehrotra and R ference of their names which ha ere casual reference of the nam atrimonial dispute without alleg atter would not justify taking cog e fact borne out of experience th e entire family members of the h king place in a matrimonial dis ter the wedding. . It would be relevant at this servation of this Court r rasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 atrimonial dispute, this Court ha

rties and after perusing the reco arguments raised by the couns levelled against the petitioners us. A perusal of the FIR (supr to the petitioners except casu mplaint given to the police whic (supra). There is a tendency stic quarrel, which erupts betwee llegation of active involvement stified. In order to prosecute th complainant, the allegations oug two Judge Bench of the Hon'b te of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 74 s held as under:- ase, when the contents of the FI there are no allegations again Ramji Mehrotra except casu ave been included in the FIR b mes of the family members in gation of active involvement in th gnizance against them overlookin hat there is a tendency to involv household in the domestic quarr spute specially if it happens soo s stage to take note of an ap recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H. SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in ad held that the High Court shou rd sel in ra) ual ch to en in he ght ble IR nst ual but a he ng ve rel on apt V. n a ha wh liti obs pa

A Kausar @ Sona speaking throug "1 Co of rel imp cou

ve quashed the complaint arisi herein all family members had igation which was quashed a served therein with which we e ra 12) "12. There has been an out recent times. Marriage is a sa of which is to enable the youn live peacefully. But little m erupt which often assume s commission of heinous crimes also involved with the resu counselled and brought abo helpless on their being arraye There are many other reaso here for not encouraging m parties may ponder over th disputes amicably by mutual out in a court of law where it and in that process the par chasing their 'cases' in differe two Judge Bench of the Hon'b am and others Vs. State of Bih gh Justice Krishna Murari has he

¶7The abovementioned decisio ourt has at numerous instances e Section 498-AIPC and the in latives of the husband in matrim e long-term ramifications of a tr e accused. It is further manifest f plication by way of general o urse of matrimonial dispute, if

ing out of a matrimonial dispu been roped into the matrimoni and set aside. Their Lordship entirely agree that: (SCC p. 69 tburst of matrimonial disputes acred ceremony, the main purpo ng couple to settle down in life an matrimonial skirmishes sudden serious proportions resulting s in which elders of the family a ult that those who could hav out rapprochement are rendere ed as accused in the criminal cas ns which need not be mentione matrimonial litigation so that th heir defaults and terminate the l agreement instead of fighting takes years and years to conclud rties lose their 'young' days ent courts." ble Supreme Court in Kahkasha har and others (2022) 6 SCC 59 eld as under:- ons clearly demonstrate that th expressed concern over the misu ncreased tendency of implicatin monial disputes, without analysin rial on the complainant as well a from the said judgments that fal omnibus allegations made in th f left unchecked would result ute ial ps 98, in se nd nly in re ve ed se. ed he eir it de in an his se ng ng as lse he mis jud rel ma of lev acc her ha of situ acc gen on sin ha Ho ma pro

9.

A v. State of Jha sister-in-law of complaint was would amount Bhandari, the fo "3 ser It i of

suse of the process of law. Th dgments has warned the cour latives and in-laws of the husba ade out against them. . Coming to the facts of this cas the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is rev velled against the appellants. T cused harassed her mentally an r pregnancy". Furthermore, no ve been made against either of e appellants have been attribute the general allegations made ag uation wherein one fails to as cused in furtherance of the offen neral and omnibus and can at b account of small skirmishes. I nce he has not appealed against ve not examined the veracity o owever, as far as the appellant ade against them being genera osecution." two Judge bench of the Hon'bl arkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 qu f the complainant noting that to humiliate her and allowing to an abuse of process of law. ollowing was observed:

¶4Before parting with this case rious relook of the entire provisio is also a matter of common kno the incident are reflected in a

erefore, this Court by way of i rts from proceeding against th and when no prima facie case se, upon a perusal of the conten vealed that general allegations a The complainant alleged that "a nd threatened her of terminatin o specific and distinct allegation f the appellants herein i.e. none ed any specific role in furtheranc gainst them. This simply leads to scertain the role played by eac nce. The allegations are, therefor est be said to have been made o Insofar as husband is concerne t the order of the High Court, w of allegations made against him ts are concerned, the allegation al and omnibus, do not warra e Supreme Court in Preeti Gup uashed the complaint against th the sole purpose of filing th criminal prosecution to continu Speaking through Justice Dalve e, we would like to observe that on is warranted by the legislatio owledge that exaggerated version large number of complaints. Th its he is nts re all ng ns of ce o a ch re, out ed, we m. ns ant pta he he ue eer t a on. ns ten of c

¶35Ev num hav hap int cha tak pra

A Shankar Tawd Justice Umesh C "1 pro can cha ind hav me dep cha und gro is wit

ndency of over implication is also cases. . The criminal trials lead to imm en ultimate acquittal in the trial e deep scars of suffering of i mber of these complaints have n ve led to enormous social unre ppiness of the society. It is high o consideration the pragmat anges in the existing law. It is ke into consideration the inf agmatic realities in consideratio e relevant provisions of law." two Judge bench of the Hon de v. State of Maharashtra (20 C. Banerjee, opined as follows:

8... In any event the wilful a oximate cause in order to bring 8-A and not de hors the same. nnot be termed to be a factum arge under section 498-A. The le dicate in particular reference to ve to be a series of acts in ord eaning of Explanation (b). The pict a reprehensible conduct, wo arge of section 498-A against th der section 306, as noticed her ound for acquittal under section required to bring home the c thout which the charge cannot be

o reflected in a very large numb mense sufferings for all concerne l may also not be able to wipe o ignominy. Unfortunately a larg ot only flooded the courts but als est affecting peace, harmony an time that the legislature must tak tic realities and make suitab imperative for the legislature formed public opinion and th on and make necessary changes 'ble Supreme Court in Girdha 02) 5 SCC 177, speaking throug act or conduct ought to be th g home the charge under sectio To have an event sometime ba taken note of in the matter of egislative intent is clear enough o Explanation (b) that there sha der to be a harassment within th letters by themselves though ma ould not, however, bring home th he accused. Acquittal of a charg reinbefore, though not by itself n 498-A, but some cogent eviden harge of section 498-A as we e said to be maintained..." er ed. out ge so nd ke ble to he in ar gh he on ck f a to all he ay he ge f a ce ell,

10.

Fu respondent No petitioners on 0 all movable an notice published registered in the in Abhishek v. S the FIR under S in-law of the c and omnibus in brother-in-law subjected her incongruous an Kumar, the sco offence under observations we

¶12Sec Sta Sal aff imp adj Ne oth 3-J ext

urthermore, a perusal of the r .2 along with her husband sta

09.01.2009 and they were disow nd immovable properties on 09 d in the newspaper in this regard e year 2014. A three Judge ben State of Madhya Pradesh 2023( Section 498-A of the IPC again complainant and observed that t n nature without any specific and mother-in-law who live to harassment for dowry. Suc nd difficult to comprehend. S ope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. qua Section 498-A was also delib ere made: . The contours of the power to q ction 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are we ate represented by Inspector of lem, Tamil Nadu and others [ firmed that where an accused se e inherent jurisdiction of th permissible for the High Court judge the correctness of the alle eeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd hers [Criminal Appeal No.330 of Judge Bench of this Court elabo tent of the power under Section 4

records of the case reveals th arted living separately from th wned by petitioners No.1 from h

9.02.2009 as is evident from th d whereas the FIR in question w nch of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou

(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 239 quashe nst the mother-in-law and brothe the allegations are mostly gener details as to how and when h ed in different cities altogeth ch allegations were found to b Speaking through Justice Sanja quashing of FIR stemming fro berated upon and the followin quash criminal proceedings und ell defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v f Police, District Crime Branc [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Cou eeks quashing of the FIR, invokin he High Court, it is whol to enter into the factual arena egations in the complaint. In M/ d. v. State of Maharashtra an f 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], orately considered the scope an 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was observe hat he his he was urt ed er-ral her her be ay om ng der vs. ch, urt ng lly to M/s. nd a nd tha cir bei pen FIR em oth reg res dow [(1 qua

¶15pro bro com and obs inv

¶16Ali app obs inv or Co ess friv

at the power of quashing shou rcumspection and in the rarest ing confused with the norm form nalty. It was further observ R/complaint, quashing of whic mbark upon an enquiry as to t herwise of the allegations made gard being had to the param straint imposed by law, and more wn by this Court in R.P. Kapur 6) and State of Haryana and o 1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the ash the FIR/complaint.

xxx

xxx . Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and a 4], this Court observed that ovisions and the language thereo e `be all and end all' of the m ought to the notice of the Cour mmitted by each and every accu d every accused in the com servations were made in the c volving Section 498A IPC. . Of more recent origin is the de i and others v. State of U.P. a 41 of 2023, decided on 08.0 plicable apropos Section 482 served that when an accused voking either the inherent power the extraordinary jurisdict onstitution, to get the FIR or th sentially on the ground that s volous or vexatious or institu

uld be exercised sparingly, wi of rare cases, such standard n mulated in the context of the dea ved that while examining th ch is sought, the Court cann the reliability or genuineness therein, but if the Court thinks f eters of quashing and the se e particularly, the parameters la v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 S others v. Bhajan Lal and othe Court would have jurisdiction xxx another v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SC the mere mention of statuto of, for lodging a complaint, is n matter, as what is required to b t is the particulars of the offen used and the role played by eac mmission of that offence. The context of a matrimonial dispu ecision of this Court in Mahmoo and others (Criminal Appeal N

08.2023) on the legal principl Cr.P.C., 1973 Therein, it wa comes before the High Cour r under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 197 tion under Article 226 of th he criminal proceedings quashe such proceedings are manifest uted with the ulterior motive ith not ath he not or fit, lf-aid SC ers to CC ry not be ce ch ese ute od No. les as rt, he ed, tly CRM-M No.17472 of 2019 -10-wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."

¶11Furthermore, after conducting a thorough investigation, allegations levelled against the petitioners were found false.  No fresh material is brought on record by the prosecution in the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which states that there is sufficient evidence to summon abovesaid persons as additional accused. Mere statement of the complainant reiterating the contents of FIR/complaint not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the discretionary and extraordinary power of this Court to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any material suggesting existence of more than prima facie case available during the course of trial of an offence, courts ought to refrain themselves from exercising its discretionary and extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme of India in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 has held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised only on the basis of the material available before the Court during a trial.

¶12The trial Court must evaluate the material against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In Cr.P.C. ought n Court in Juhru through Justice has held as und "1 dec be cas has po in per tria be les ag cre be

13.

In is allowed and 498-A, 420, 12 Tarn Taran an summoning ord

May 21, 2024 Pankaj*

the absence of any credible mate not to be invoked. A two Judg u and others Vs. Karim and ano e Surya Kant, while relying upo er:-

¶6It is, thus, manifested from cision that power of summoning exercised routinely and the ex se is sine qua non to summon sten to add that with a view t wer to summon additional accus conformity with the binding ju e procedural safeguard can be th rson at the very threshold of the al court must evaluate the evide summoned and then adjudge ss, carry the same weightage gainst those who are already fac edible evidence, the power unde invoked. view of the aforesaid facts and d FIR No.377 dated 09.10.2014 20-B IPC registered at Police S nd all subsequent proceedings der dated 23.01.2017 are quashed

(HARPR

erial, the power under Section 31 ge Bench of the Hon'ble Suprem other (2023) 5 SCC 406 speakin on Hardeep Singh's case (supr a conjoint reading of the cite g under Section 319 CrPC is not xistence of more than prima fac an additional accused. We ma to prevent the frequent misuse sed under Section 319 CrPC, an udicial dictums referred to abov hat ordinarily the summoning of e trial may be discouraged and th ence against the persons sought whether such material, more o and value as has been testifie cing trial. In the absence of an er Section 319 CrPC ought not circumstances, the instant petitio 4 registered under Sections 40 Station City Tarn Taran, Distri arising therefrom including th d qua petitioners No.2 and 3. REET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

me ng ra) ed to cie ay of nd ve, f a he to or ed ny to on 06, ict

CRM-M No.17472 of 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M No.17472 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.05.2024 Ram Kumar and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***