Harjit Kaur v. Gurpreet Singh Bhullar and Ors

IN T

Harjit Kaur Gurpreet Si

CORAM:

Present:- Nidhi Gupta

seeking leav learned Judi respondents No.COMI/22 Police Statio respondent N law of the ap

¶2the applicant born out of applicant/com various dow numerous go that, respond to time. Pri THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGAR

r Vs. ngh Bhullar & Others

HON'BLE MS. JUSTIC Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Adv ***** a, J.

Present application under ve to file appeal against judgme icial Magistrate, 1st Class, Am herein, have been acquitted 23945/2013 filed under Section on B Division, Amritsar. Resp No.2 is the father-in-law and res pplicant/complainant.

Brief facts of the case as t was married to respondent No. their wedlock on 07.03.2005. A mplainant, her family had spen wry articles including washing old ornaments along with cash, g dents were not satisfied and used imarily, the allegations made JAB & HARYANA AT RH CRM-A-6-2020(O&M) Date of order: 18.07.2024 …..Applicant(s) …..Respondent(s) CE NIDHI GUPTA vocate for the applicant. r Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is filed ent dated 23.07.2019 passed by mritsar, whereby the accused-d in complaint case bearing ns 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at pondent No.1 is the husband, spondent No.3 is the mother-in-set out by the applicant are that 1 on 25.02.2004. One child was At the time of marriage of the nt huge amount and given her g machine, TV, etc. and also gifts to the respondents. Despite to taunt the applicant from time by the applicant against the

) ) d y - g t , - t s e r o e e e

respondents demands of Subsequently

21.04.2006. police howev of the presen present priva

¶3the list of d However, de that even pho applicant wh which suffici evidence has

¶4error in hold under Sectio order to prov physically in because the incidents of accordingly,

5.

¶6perused the c are of beatings inflicted upon cash and other gift items as y, the applicant was thrown ou The applicant had previously al ver, no action was taken thereup nt respondents. Ultimately, on 10 ate complaint under Sections 406

Learned counsel for the a dowry articles has been duly pl espite that, the respondents have otographs Ex.CW1/20 to Ex.CW hich show dowry articles being iently proves the case of the app been wrongly disregarded by th

It is further submitted th ding that since there is no MLR n 498-A IPC is not made out. L ve cruelty, it is not mandatory njured and get herself examine applicant had not proved on r beating, her allegation of crue prayed that the impugned judgm

No other argument is mad

I have heard learned c case file in great detail. n her by the respondents; and dowry, especially motorcycle. ut of the matrimonial home on lso filed a complaint before the pon due to the political influence

0.2.2019, the applicant filed the 6, 498-A and 506 IPC. applicant inter alia submits that laced on record as Ex.CW1/A. e been acquitted. It is submitted W1/33, were also produced by the handed over to the respondents plicant. However, even the said he learned trial Court. hat the learned trial Court is in R on record, therefore, offence Learned counsel submits that in that the complainant should be ed. It is contended that merely record the MLR regarding the lty cannot be disregarded. It is ment be set aside. de on behalf of the applicant. counsel for the applicant and d . n e e e t . d e s d n e n e y e s d

¶7that she was intoxicant ta respondents. inflicted on respondents fact that she evidence wha has been pla Even the pre not been pla cruelty, it ha her gold artic However, the attend neithe nor the date o incident of matrimonial examination-date to a bea parental hom of the matrim has been alle home on 21.0 on 10.02.200

In the present case, it ha dragged by respondent No.1 fr ablet by him, and that she w In face of such vehement al n her by the respondents, in had threatened to kill her, and e was pregnant, it is odd that atsoever in support of the said a aced on record by the applicant evious complaint alleged to have aced on record by her. As reg s been alleged by the applicant t cles from her mother-in-law as s e applicant did not disclose as to er the name of the person whose of marriage nor her relation with

21.04.2006 when she was home when she was pregnant, -in-chief that respondent No.1/hu auty salon to get her threading d me. Needless to say, this would monial home, let alone cruelty. I eged by the applicant that she wa

04.2006, however, present comp

¶09as been alleged by the applicant rom her hair, and forcibly given was habitually beaten by the llegations of constant beatings ncluding allegations that the that she was beaten despite the the applicant has produced no llegations. Admittedly, no MLR t in support of her contentions. e been filed by the applicant has gards the allegation of mental that she had demanded return of she wanted to attend a marriage. o whose marriage she wanted to e marriage she wanted to attend h the said person. As regards the allegedly thrown out of the the applicant has stated in her usband had taken her on the said done; whereafter she went to her not constitute being thrown out It is also relevant that although it as thrown out of the matrimonial plaint has been filed by her only t n e s e e o R . s l f . o d e e r d r t t l y

¶8brother/CW2 injuries to h brother/CW2 learned trial C Protection of

¶9complaints a general, and judgment titl Live Law (S Court has fla times and ha husband and correspondin a verbatim re has further ob

¶10find no error

The applicant has also ad 2 and maternal uncle are faci er father-in-law in Court. This 2 also. It has also been admitt Court that in view of the above f f Women from Domestic Violenc

It has become a matte against the husband and his re omnibus allegations without any led as "Achin Gupta Vs. State SC) 343, Law Finder doc ID # ag marked the flagrant misuse o as recommended that in view d his hapless relatives, the Legis ng Sections 85 and 86 of the Bha eproduction of Section 498-A IP bserved as follows: - "In all cases, wher or ill-treatment, Se be applied mech conduct, which may may not amount to quarrels between sp day married life, m

In the present case, in view r in the impugned order in holdin dmitted in her evidence that her ng criminal cases for causing fact has been admitted by her ed by the applicant before the facts, even her petition under the ce Act has been dismissed. er of routine to file criminal elatives on the basis of vague, y material in support. In a recent of Haryana & Another" 2024 2569458, the Hon'ble Supreme of Section 498-A IPC in recent of the false implication of the slature needs must relook at the aratiya Nyaya Sanhita which are PC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court re wife complains of harassment ection 498-A of the IPC cannot hanically. Every matrimonial y cause annoyance to the other, cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, pouses, which happen in day-to-ay also not amount to cruelty". w of the facts as noticed above I ng that the applicant was unable r g r e e l , t e t e e e t t t l

- I e

to prove com respondents.

¶11IPC, it is an under the s that: firstly th accused; seco return of the refusal on pa case, no dou However, the evidence to p articles were on the list ha produced as person from admitted in Ex.CW1/13) further admit estimates th

03.03.2014 p Ex.CW1/17, Bills of cloth customer, et learned trial C mmission of offence under secti

As regards allegations of established precept of law that said provision, it is essential here should be entrustment o ondly there should be a demand e said articles; and thirdly, there art of the accused to return the sa ubt, the list of articles has been p e same is a photocopy. The appl prove the same. Moreover, it is allegedly entrusted. Even the pe as not been examined. The bills Ex.CW1/2 to Ex.CW1/13. CW whom the said articles were p his cross-examination that do not bear the date, bill num tted that these are kacha bills in hereupon. As regards the bil produced as Ex.CW1/19 and bil the same are in the name of m hes (Ex.CW1/14 to Ex.CW1/16 c. As such, on the basis of ev Court has found as follows: - ion 498-A IPC, by the accused-f the applicant under section 406 in order to make out an offence to establish three ingredients of dowry articles to the by the complainant side seeking e has to be a misappropriation/ aid dowry articles. In the present placed on record as Ex.CW1/A. licant has even led no secondary s not clear as to whom the said erson whose signatures are there s of the gold articles have been W4 has been produced as the purchased. However, CW4 has the said bills (Ex.CW1/2 to mber or any signatures. He has nasmuch as these are orders and l of washing machine dated ll of the television produced as maternal uncle of the applicant. 6) do not bear the name of the vidence led by the parties, the - e s e g / t . y d e n e s o s d d s . e e

"8. I have heard Complainant and have gone through all the section 406 has been placed on is photocopy. It ha that the original of the situation is tha prove it by leading file, but she has no signatures of any articles are stated t whose signatures a been examined. F about the occasion Further bills of the Ex.Cw1/2 to Ex.Cw articles of the gold his cross examinat not bear the date a on these. He has a cash memo and h order and estimat Even he has not pr in the court, sinc Further in her c herself admitted th produced in the c name of her mate purchased after th place on 25.02.200 Further bill of th CWl/17, this is als the Learned Counsel for the Learned Defence Counsel and the case file carefully. First of 6 of the IPC, list of the articles n the file as Ex. Cwl/A, the same as not been proved on the file f the same is with the accused. If at, then the complainant has to g the secondary evidence in the t done so. List does not bear the of the accused to whom the to be entrusted. Even the person are there on the list that has not Further list does not mention n for which that was prepared. e gold articles are produced as w1/13 and CW4 from whom the d are alleged to be purchased in tion admitted that the bills does and bill number and signatures also admitted that these are not he has admitted that these are te as per the writing on these. roduced the record qua the bills ce these are the Kacha Bills. cross-examination complainant hat the washing machine's bill ourt as Ex. CW1/19 is on the ernal uncle and even this was he marriage as marriage took 04 and bill is of date 13.03.2014. he Television produced as Ex. so on the name of the Gurnam e d f s e e f o e e e n t n

s e n s s t e

s

t l e s k

m

¶12argument tha the applicant return of the Singh who is mate Bills Ex. Cw1/14 t cloths, but these d customer and even produced from complainant produ the handing over th as Ex. Cw1/20 to E are not part of the of the other file wh file, even in her admitted that these her and even no bil placed on the file been produced in t got established on the articles alleged party is doubtful th is also become dou it has not been state machine, T.V., iron were entrusted to th the washing machi these are on the n and even one bill i bills of other ar proved…."

In the present case even at an entrustment was made, how t to show that a demand was ma said articles; and there was a r ernal uncle of the complainant. to Ex. Cw1/16 are bills of the does not bear the name of the n the record has not beer got the concern shop. Further uced, the photographs 10 show he articles to the accused parties Ex. Cw 1/33. these photographs this case file these are the part hich is attached with the present r cross examination she has photographs had not clicked by ll of these photographs has been e and even negatives have not the court. So these are also not the file. Since the purchase of d to be entrusted to the accused hen the entrustment of the same ubtful. Further in the complaint ed specifically to whom washing n almira and house hold articles he accused persons, only bills of ne and T.V. have produced and name of the some other person is of after the marriage and no rticles are not produced or if it is assumed for the sake of wever, there is nothing on part of ade by her or her family seeking refusal on part of the accused to

e e t r w s s t t s y n t t f d e t g s f d n o r f f g o

return the sa established.

¶13above said fa

14.

15.

18.07.2024 Sunena

Whethe Whethe aid articles. As such, offence

Learned counsel for the p acts and findings and legal positi

Present application is acco

Pending application(s) if a

er speaking/reasoned er reportable

under section 406 IPC is not petitioner is unable to dispute the ion. ordingly, dismissed. any also stand(s) disposed of.

(Nidhi Gupta)

Judge t e