HC: It has become common practice to use Section 498- A of IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. Read Judgment
On 15th May’2020, Justice Jaishree Thakur of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur & ors. Versus Jaswinder Kaur & ors stated that “it has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives”.
The Bench stated that,”The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grandparents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades”.
FACTS
Complainant got married with Jaswant Singh on 05.08.1989. In the complaint it was averred that marriage was solemnized lavishly and a sum of `4 lakhs was spent thereon apart from giving dowry articles, gold ornaments and other luxurious items. The complaint was made against the husband Jaswant Singh, Amarjit Kaur alleged to be second wife of Jaswant Singh, father-in-law Dilbagh Singh, mother-in-law Charan Kaur, brother-in-law Ranjit Singh and the sister-in-law Amarjit Kaur.
Complainant alleged that soon after the marriage, the accused persons named in the complaint started harassing the complainant on account of not bringing enough dowry and they raised a demand of Maruti 800 car along with an amount of `50,000/-. Accused No.4 in the complaint i.e. mother-in-law of the complainant also raised a demand of gold ornament.
On 24.07.1993, the complainant gave birth to a girl child namely Manjinder Kaur at Nawanshahar and entire expenses of the delivery were borne by parents of the complainant. It was alleged that after the birth of girl child, the mother-in-law raised a demand of `5 lakhs. The husband and petitioners herein along with mother-in-law taunted the complainant for not giving birth to a male child.
Complainant further alleged that on 24.01.2008, husband of the complainant at the instance of his family members turned her out of matrimonial home and on 23.02.2008 also left the daughter with the complainant at Jalandhar and threatened her of dire consequences if she made a complaint against him.
When complainant came to know that her husband solemnized a second marriage with one Amarjit Kaur (who was made accused No.2 in the complaint) without taking any divorce from her. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A complaint was also made by her to the Commissioner of Police on 5.76.2012 but no action had been taken.
TRIAL COURT
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-1ST CLASS
Complainant stepped into witness box as CW1 and examined one Balkiat Singh as CW-2 and Piar Kaur as CW3, who reiterated the version of the complaint. She placed on record photographs of her husband with second wife as Ex.C3 to C5 and copies of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her and against his second wife as Ex.C6 and C7 respectively. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar on appreciation of material placed before it, summoned the husband to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 494 IPC and the mother-in-law under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC whereas the other accused persons were discharged including the petitioners herein.
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE
The aforementioned order was challenged by the complainant in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who vide order dated 02.02.2015 while noting the fact that there are specific allegations against accused No.3, 5 and 6 i.e. petitioners herein set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar and directed to pass appropriate summoning order after re-considering the evidence placed before him.
RECONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE
The trial Court on reconsideration of the evidence before it passed order dated 06.12.2016 whereby accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 i.e. petitioners herein have also been ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC.
Pursuant to the summoning order, notice were issued to the petitioners and since they did not put in appearance despite publication, they were declared as proclaimed offenders vide order dated 04.08.2017.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Petitioner filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No.31861/13 dated 06.09.2012 and the summoning order dated 06.12.2016 whereby petitioners herein have been summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC and order dated 04.08.2017 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders.
The High Court relied on the fact that the,
“Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who got married on 04.02.1989 and has been residing in her matrimonial home since then and therefore, there is not even a remotest possibility that husband of the complainant was used to give beatings to her at the instance of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 was born on 12.07.1979 and was 11 years of age in March, 1990 when the complainant alleged that she was given beatings by her husband at the instance of petitioner No.2. Moreover, he had left for Canada in March, 1996 and is residing there since then. Similarly, petitioner No.3 aged 74 years had left for Canada in 1996 and is residing there since then with petitioner No.2.”
In such an eventuality, it is hard to believe that petitioners had harassed the complainant as alleged in the complaint.
High Court further stated that, “it has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives”. The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grandparents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades.
The Court further held that,
- The complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners regarding allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant or demanding dowry from her.
- The complaint does not disclose specific allegation against the petitioners except casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners.
The Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and quashed the FIR registered against the unmarried sister of the husband on the ground that prima facie case was not attracted against her in the absence of specific allegations.
The Court further stated that the case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therefore the subsequent proceedings including the orders were quashed.
Read Judgment
About Post Author
