Bhushan Kumar Meen vs State Of Punjab & Ors

quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S.

Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2

herein.

3. The appellant's marriage was solemnized with

the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh

rites. After their marriage, the couple went

to Gujarat where the appellant was employed

with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District

Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband

and wife, though no child was born out of the

said wedlock. Subsequently, differences arose

between the appellant and the respondent No.2

which resulted in a complaint being made by

the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior

3

Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting

that a criminal case be registered against the

appellant under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.

The said complaint was forwarded to the Women's

Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry

into the allegations made by the respondent

No.2 against the appellant. After such

inquiry, the Women's Cell came to the

conclusion that even in spite of the periodical

differences between the appellant and the

respondent No.2, they continued to maintain

their relationship as husband and wife. From

the report it appears that even after she left

Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she

returned to Gujarat in January 2006, and,

thereafter, they visited Mount Abu, Bombay,

Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar,

and both of them even went to Ambala to attend

the retirement function of her mother-in-law,

but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala

4

instead of going with the appellant to the

Zirakpur. The Women's Cell also found that the

respondent No.2 had great love for her parents

and as a result she wanted to stay with them

more often. Even on the question of dowry, it

was found that the entire complaint had been

exaggerated and that the respondent No.2 was

determined to teach her husband and his family

members a lesson by levelling serious

allegations against them. The ultimate

conclusion arrived at by the Women's Cell was

that nothing had come out from the inquiry to

prove the demand of dowry and issuance of

threat, and that the dispute was of a civil

nature which did not call for any action by the

local police at the said stage.

4. Subsequently, a further inquiry was held by the

Superintendent of Police, Patiala, who despite

taking into consideration the report filed by

5

the Women's Cell Patiala, came to the

conclusion that the respondent No.2 had been

harassed by the appellant and her father-in-law

and mother-in-law for not meeting the demand of

dowry and suggested action to be taken under

Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, on

receipt of the said report, the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Patiala, met the

appellant and the respondent No.2 and was of

the view that the matter did not appear to be a

case of demand of dowry and the allegations

needed to be checked again for evidence, though

the ingredients of Section 498-A could be true.

The Superintendent of Police, Patiala, was

directed to re-verify and substantiate the

evidence.

5. After further inquiry, the Superintendent of

Police, once again came to the conclusion that

6

the appellant had harassed the respondent No.2

which merited the registration of a case

against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.

Upon the case being registered, the appellant

filed Criminal Misc. No.13709 of 2007 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. The

matter was heard by the learned Single Judge,

who, by his order dated 27.8.2008, dismissed

the application filed by the appellant for

quashing of the FIR and held that in view of

the specific allegations contained therein, no

ground for quashing the same had been made out

and the appellant would be at liberty to set up

the plea in defence at the appropriate stage of

the trial.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned

Single Judge, the appellant filed the Special

Leave Petition out of which the present appeal

arises.

7 7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vijay K.

Aggarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that at

every stage the appellant had made sincere

attempts to make the marriage with the

respondent No.2 work, but at every stage such

efforts of the appellant had been resisted. It

was submitted that the appellant had agreed to

live with the respondent No.2 in a house which

was separate from the house in which his

parents lived, since it was one of the

complaints of the respondent No.2 that he was

paying more attention to his parents than to

her. According to the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants, all the attempts

made by the appellant to make the marriage work

proved to be futile on account of the attitude

of the respondent No.2, and even the complaint

made against him was a fallout thereof,

8

although, there was no truth whatsoever in any

of the allegations made in the FIR.

8. On behalf of the respondent No.2 an attempt was

made to show that the appellant is a person who

was only interested in harassing the respondent

No.2 for bringing dowry. However, the said

allegations do not bear scrutiny in view of the

report filed by the Women's Cell, Patiala that

the appellant and the respondent No.2 had

visited various places all over the country

together, which, according to the learned

counsel for the appellant, clearly proves that

the appellant and the respondent No.2 continued

to maintain a normal relationship of husband

and wife despite their moments of disagreement.

Coupled with the above, is the observation of

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala,

that after meeting the couple he was of the

view that the matter did not relate to a dowry

9

offence and that the dispute appeared to be of

a civil nature.

9. The complaint made by the respondent No.2 does

not, in our view, make out a case under Section

498-A IPC and appears to have been filed by the

respondent No.2 based on misunderstandings

between the parties prompting the respondent

No.2 to attack the appellant for something

which is likely to have occurred during their

stormy marriage.

10. In our view, the learned Single Judge of the

High Court did not appreciate the nature of the

on and off relationship between the appellant

and the respondent No.2, which caused him to

dismiss the appellant's application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there

were serious allegations in the FIR which have

been registered against the appellant regarding

his alleged cruelty and maltreatment of the

10

respondent No.2 and even misappropriation by

him.

11. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of

the learned Single Judge, since from the entire

records available it is clear that the

complaint made by the respondent No.2 did not

make out a prima facie case to go to trial

under Section 498-A IPC.

12. In such circumstances, we are inclined to

accept Mr. Aggarwal's submissions that no

offence under Section 498-A IPC had been made

out against the appellant and the complaint

was, therefore, liable to be rejected and the

FIR was also liable to be quashed.

13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order of the High Court is set aside and the

FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the

appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the

basis thereof, are quashed.

11 ............................................................J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

............................................................J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

............................................................J.

(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi,

Dated: 02.09.2011.