G.S. Chahal, J.
1. Sudhir Kumar and others by the means of this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. seek quashing of FIR162 dated 24.9.90, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana u/ss 406/498A, IPC, the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. filed by the Police on it basis and the charges framed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by Smt. Meenakshi Bala, complainant. She is the wife of Ranbir Singh alias Ranbir Kumar. Ram Dass petitioner6 and Smt. Satyawati petitioner2 are parents of Ranbir Singh. Sudhir Singh petitioner1 is the brother of Ranbir Singh and Smt. Devyanti petitioner3 is the wife of the former. Smt Kusum petitioner4 and Smt Rekha petitioner 5 are the wives of the other brothers of Ranbir Singh. The FIR was registered on the averments that the complainant was married on 8.2.87 and her parents gave dowry to her husband Ranbir Singh and his father petitioner 6 beyond their means and statues. After giving details of the articles of dowry, the FIR continues to narrate the following allegations :
"............. When the marriage party came to her residence, the bridegroom and his father Ram Dass, his wife Satya Devi my husband''s elder brother''s wife namely Devyanti and Kusum and my husband''s elder brother Sudhir started saying that T.V. and Fridge has not been given two what is this marriage. My motherinlaw removed two golden sets and my husbands elder brother''s wife Devyanti removed four golden bangles and Kusum elder brother''s wife removed pair of ear rings and 4 expensive suits and 4 sarees were removed by Rekha another elder brother''s wife without my consent. My brother Yashpal and other members of my family know this fact. The Maruti car given to me by my parents was taken away by Sudhir Singh my husband''s elder brother. After my marriage, I was tormented that I should get more money from my brothers for them to run their business. They started beating me. Butmy parents were not in a position to fulfill their demands an requested the accused a number of times that they could not afford to fulfill their demands. But I was pestered throughout. During this period I gave birth to two daughters on which they got further annoyed with me saying that I am only giving births to daughters. I was turned out of the house on 13.6.1990 after being beaten and my daughters were taken away from me. My youngest daughter at that time was 6 months old. She used to take my breast milk and I requested that she would not be able to live without mother but no body listened to me. As a result I was not even informed of her death and I was not called for her funeral ceremony and making this statement against my inlaws, sisters in law, brother in law because my parents could not give more dowry. They have refused to return me my properties and articles I am out of fear I am living with my brothers......"
2. The petitioners assert that all the allegations contained in the FIR are false. Her father had tried his best to prevail upon her to continue to live a decent life with her husband, Ranbir Singh. The Complainant had left the house of her husband in the middle of 1990 and Ranbir Singh then lodged a report with Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana, informing the Police of her leaving the house after quarreling. She had left her two children behind and out of them, the younger one had died on 12.8.90 inspite of best medical aid. The complainant herself was of bad temperament and used to quarrel with Ranbir Singh on one pretext or the other. The petitioners had been making efforts to intervene and bring about reconciliation. At the time of marriage, no demand for dowry was made. Sudhir Kumar, petitioner 1 and Ram Dass petitioner 6 were living separately from Ranbir Singh who was living in house No. 103A Model Town, while Satish Kumar was living in house No. 103A Model Town Extension Ludhiana for which they had separate rationcard Anr P3 & 2 gas consumer cards Anr P4 & P5. At the time of getting her daughter Km Shilpa Garg admitted in Home and Heaven Nursery School, 573, Model Town, Ludhiana, the complainant had given her address as 49L, Model Town Ludhiana. Copy of admission from is Annexure P6. It was signed by her as a parent or guardian and bears the date 5.3.90. The petitioners have also placed on record an affidavit of Girdhari Lal, father of the complainant Annexure P2, showing that the list of dowry articles given in the FIR was wrong and a false version had been put up to implicate the petitioners.
3. In the reply fixed by the complainant it has been stated that Ranbir Singh was staying in house No. 433R, Model Town, Ludhiana when the marriage took place House No. 49 L. Model Town was taken on rent only in October 1989 as evidenced by the statement of Satwant Singh, its owner. Having stayed in that house till December 1990, Ranbir Singh again shifted back to his house 433R, Model Town. The articles of dowry were entrusted to all the accused persons and misappropriation had been committed by them at house No. 433R, Model Town. Subsequently, however, Ranbir Singh was got shifted to house No. 49 L, Model Town. During investigation, domestic articles had been recovered from house No. 49L, but the car and other gold ornaments could not be recovered. It was denied that the marriage was performed with simple ceremonies. Illtreatment had started since the complainant had given birth to two daughters. She was not even allowed to talk to her brothers on telephone. She had been turned out of the house by giving severe beating on 13.6.1990. Some outstanding bills of the firm of her brother had to been paid by the firms of the accused persons after receiving supply of the material. Copies thereof are Annexures R3 and R4. Her brother suffered the loss so as to maintain good relations. An infant daughter of the complainant had been killed regarding which she had prosecution under section 302 IPC. Girdhari Lal father of the complainant had left his house in the year 1984 after committing a fraud on a number of people. Thereafter he has not returned to his house. In fact, Girdhari Lal was a drunkard and vagabond. For the sake of liquor, he has deserted the entire family. History of purchase of the car was also given. It was further claimed that subsequently ration card had been got fraudulently prepared in order to frustrate the case of the complainant. With respect to admission of Shipa Garg, her daughter, it was claimed that Ranbir Singh had got her signatures on the admission form as a clever device.
4. The plea of the complainant that her father did not attend her marriage and ceremonies were performed by her brother, seems to be an after thought. In the FIR, a reference was made to her parents performing the marriage and giving dowry. Since her father has not reconciled to her act of deserting her matrimonial home and has filed an affidavit, giving facts about the marriage being simple, she has taken the stand that in fact, her father was a vegabond and drunkard who had deserted his family and even did not attend her marriage. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that relations of her brother with Ranbir Singh had become strained and that had complicated the matters. It is clear from the averments made in the reply by way of affidavit filed by her that there was some money dispute between her brother and her husband. She complained of nonpayment of bills Annexures R3 and R4. She further complains that her brother had suffered a loss to keep his relations cordial. Annexure P7 is the statement made by her to the Police on 1.8.89, in some inquiry instituted by the Police on the basis of application of Yash Pal, her brother and it reads as follows :
"It is stated that for the last about 21/2 years am living with my husband Ranbir Kumar after my marriage. A girl was born to me who is about 11/2 years old. I myself live with my husband Ranbir Kumar happily. I have no difficulty. The application which has been given by Yashpal s/o Girdhari Lal, resident of Karimpura, Police Station Division No. 5, against me, is absolutely false. Myself (sic)."
Thus, on 11.8.89 the complainant was living happily with her husband and when her brother made some complaint against her husband she stood by here husband and made a claim that both of them were living happily with each other. In the statement, she had given her address as resident of house No. 423/R, Model Town, Police Station Division No. 5. Admittedly, subsequently she and her husband shifted from those premises. She has also tried to cover up the matter by saying that it was the petitioners who got Ranbir Kaur shifted to house No. 49L. During investigation, the Police had made recoveries from her husband''s house No. 49L Model Town. Annexures P19 and P10 bear testimony to this effect. It is also in the statements of Sukhdev Singh, Annexure P 1, and Satwant Singh, Annexure P22 that the recoveries were effected from Ranbir Singh resident of 49 L, Ludhiana. Thus, while Ranbir Singh was staying at house No. 49L, the petitioners continued living at house No. 33R, Model Town, Ludhiana, as evidenced by ration card Annexure P3 and Gas Consumer Card Annexure P4. These documents will, thus, clearly show that Ranbir Singh had shifted to house No. 49L Model Town, much prior to the day of complainant leaving the house. For some reasons, which in all probability were due to interference of her brother Yashpal who had his own axe to grind against Ranbir Singh, the marriage of the spouses was disturbed. When the police raided the house of Ranbir Singh No. 49L the articles which she claimed to be forming part of Istri Dhan, were, in fact, recovered from that place. This recovery and the fact that for many months before Meenakshi''s leaving her house, she had been living with her husband separately from other members of her inlaws'' family, will its. If establish that if the petitioners had no role to play in the marital life of the spouses. Their marriage was performed on 8.2.1987 and it becomes difficult to accept that the articles which were given at the time of marriage, as dowry, remained in possession of the persons, other than Ranbir Singh. A claim has also been made that a Maruti Car, Engine No. 1 6173, Chassis No. 136322 was in fact, purchased by Yash Pal Goel for his sister, the complainant. Reliance has also been placed upon delivery receipt signed by Yash Pal, and dated 8.2.87. The receipt Annexure R2 is not from a regular dealer of cars, but is claimed to have been issued in favour of a dealer. The receipt is not signed by the dealer himself and Yash Pal was very Keen even to fix the time of delivery, as 1.45 p.m. The other evidence collected by the prosecution rebuts the evidence. According to the statement of Sh. Bhola Singh, Clerk in the office of DTO, Ludhiana, the car was originally registered in the name of Nasim Akhtar Ansari and was transferred in the name of Sudhir Kumar s/o Ram Dass on 11.8.87. The name given in the registration of the car is the best piece of evidence of its ownership. The car was thus, originally owned by Nasim Akhtar Ansari. It is difficult to accept that if Ranbir Singh was the owner of the car at no stage from 8.2.87 and 11.8.87 he made an effort to get it transferred in his name, nor was such an effort made by Yash Pal who claims to have given it in dowry. On the face of it, a cooked up version has been given with respect to the car as given in dowry.
5. The principles relating to the quashing of the FIR at its initial stage were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 949. Their Lordships observed therein that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justice. If, cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. Their Lordships further observed as under :
"65. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual."
6. This view of considering the other relevant material for the satisfaction of the court that no offence is disclosed, has not been deviated in any of the subsequent judgments of the apex Court. The present case is one, where the attending circumstances must be taken into account while deciding the matter of quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. The only interference which the petitioners may have made in the marital life of the complainant and her husband may be to prevail upon them to settle their minor disputes, which are common feature of married life, amicably. The complainant, who in all probability, is acting under the guidance of her brother Yashpal, has tried to involve each and every relation of her husband, Ranbir Singh, and thrown the net wider. In view of the circumstances of the present case, where both the spouses were living separately from other members of her husband''s family; where the articles claimed to be dowry articles, were recovered from a house where only both of them were living the implication of the present petitioners in a criminal charge u/ss 406/498A. IPC is an abuse of the court. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR qua the petitioners, along with report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. and the charges framed against them.
JUDGMENT accordingly.
