S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'') relates to quashment of first information report, relating to registration of a case under Sections 406/498A/109/114, Indian Penal Code. Police Station Shahabad, and, subsequent proceedings, including order of framing of charge passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra on 1.9.1987, and, the order dated 14.7.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on revision.
2. In brief the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition, are, that Madhukar Sharma, son of petitioner No. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, was married to respondent No. 2 on 21.5.1985. Decree for divorce was passed on 12.1.1987. Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against there husband Madhukar Sharma, as well as, against the present petitioner, under Sections 406/498A read with Sections 109/114, Indian Penal Code. According to the allegations in the said complaint, the articles of dowry (fully detailed in the annexure) were entrusted to all the accused at the time of the marriage, for the use of the complainant alone in the matrimonial home. Her husband, and, in his absence other accused, had been harassing and treating her with cruelty, for compelling her to bring more articles of dowry, such as T.V. and scooter. Madhukar Sharma changed his religion and became Muslim and he married one Sonia alias Sabnam on 5.5.1987. On the basis of the said complaint impugned first information report was registered on 25.9.1986 under the order dated 23.9.1986 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra. During investigation of the case, articles of dowry were, subsequently, recovered from the residence of Madhukar Sharma and handed over to respondent No. 2. The Judicial Magistrate then framed the charge against the petitioners, and, Madhukar Sharma, as detailed above.
3. Earlier Criminal Misc. No. 8648M of 1987, seeking quashment, was dismissed as withdrawn by brother I.S. Tiwana, J. on 18.12.1987, and, the petitioner were directed to approach the Judicial Magistrate.
4. The application moved by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed by the Magistrate vide his order dated 12.5.1988 (copy Annexure P.3). The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 14.7.1988, vide, his order Annexure P.4.
5. This petition has mainly been resisted on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that all the petitioners, including her husband Madhukar Sharma, tortured and maltreated her for bringing inadequate dowry. It was pleaded that charge against the petitioners had been rightly framed as prima facie a case for commission of offence under Sections 406/498A read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, had been made out against them.
6. The counsel for the parties were heard. A careful perusal of the complaint, which, formed the basis of the first information report in this case, clearly shows that no specific allegation about entrustment of any specific article of dowry to any particular petitioner has been made therein. Rather, a bald assertion has been made in the complaint that articles of ornaments and furniture, fully detailed in the annexure, were entrusted to the accused at the time of the marriage, for use of the complainant in the matrimonial home. There is no specific allegation that the said articles at a later stage were misappropriated by any of the petitioners. The said articles, rather, were recovered from the house of Madhukar Sharma, husband of respondent No. 2, and that too, after he changed his religion and entered into remarriage with Sonia alias Sabnam. In these circumstances, no cognizbale offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, is made out against any of the petitioners.
7. Regarding offence under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, also there are only general allegations against the petitioners that accused No. 1 Madhukar Sharma "stated, being mostly out of status on one, or, the other false pretext, and all the other accused in his absence, have been harassing and treating her with cruelty and compelling her (respondent No. 2) by as T.V. and scooter, on the ground that the dowry given was insufficient according to their statues". From the allegations in the petition it is quite apparent that remarriage of Madhukar Sharma took place within one year of his marriage with respondent No. 2. Madhukar Sharma is living separately with his second wife, and, his marriage with respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved. In the absence of any specific details, concerning date, time, or the manner in which respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty, no charge under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, could be legally framed against the petitioners.
8. Faced with this difficulty, it was submitted that Section 245, Indian Penal Code, would cover only the case instituted, otherwise, on Police report, and, or application moved by the petitioners, order for discharge, or, acquittal of the accused, could not be legally passed either by the Judicial Magistrate, or, by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision. Precisely, for that reason, it would be desirable for this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for directing quashment of F.I.R. No. 213 dated 23.9.1986, regarding at Police Station Shahabad, and, the subsequent proceedings taken thereon, including, the order of framing of charge under Sections 406/498A/109/114, Indian Penal Code, against the present petitioners. I am fortified in my view by the authority in case Inderjit Singh and others v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527 relied 1988(2) Punjab Law Reporter 28.
9. For the foregoing reasons, entire proceedings against the petitioners, on the basis of the aforesaid first information report, and, the framing of the charge against them, are directed to be quashed. However, the trial Magistrate would proceed with the trial of Madhukar Sharma, according to law.
This petition is allowed accordingly.
