VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint dated 20.10.2003 filed under sections 406/498-A/494/420/504/506/34 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur and also the summoning order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka summoning the petitioner herein under section 504/506 IPC as well as subsequent proceedings arising thereto qua the petitioner.
(2.) THE main ground on which the petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint is that even if all the allegations made in the complaint qua the petitioner are taken on their face value no offence under section 504 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioner and thus, the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings and the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is nothing but misuse of the process of the court. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to notice that in the complaint the allegations against the petitioner are to the following effect : "6. That when I was expecting my daughter at that time accused Chinder Singh gave me beatings and turned me out of my matrimonial home. He asked me to get the child aborted and turned me out of the house after giving beatings in August, 2002. On this I got FIR registered against accused at PS City Fazilka. The said FIR was registered u/ss 315/511/323 IPC dated 18.8.02 at P.S. City Fazilka. After FIR the accused compromised the matter with me and said that he will not do alike in future. After compromise between us, accused Chinder Singh was acquitted by the Ld. Court. Then again I started residing in the house of Chinder Singh as his wife. I and my husband started living at Fazilka in a rented house. Accused No. 2 Rajwinder Kaur came to our house and I asked her that whom she wanted to meet. He told me that she was the first wife of Chinder Singh and that I had no connection with this house. When Chinder Singh came, I asked him that when he was married earlier then why he did not tell me about this. He said that he did not tell me about this voluntarily. I asked him that you have cheated me,where as you told me that you got divorce from your first wife but in fact divorce did not took place between Rajwinder Kaur and Chinder Singh. In this manner the accused Chinder Singh had cheated me and spoiled my life. "8. That after I was turned out of my house, I came to the house of my parents. When I came to my house, then I my mother and my brother-in-law Manpreet Singh went to the house of Chinder Singh accused and requested Chinder Singh to rehabilitate Simarpal Kaur but he turned a deaf ear. When we took panchayat to the house of Chinder Singh at Jalalabad, at that time Rajwinder Kaur was also present there. I asked Chinder Singh to return the dowry articles given at the time of marriage but he flatly refused to return the same. Rajwinder Kaur and Chinder Singh started threatening that they will not return the articles and we can do what ever we can. We have misappropriated he articles. Rajwinder Kaur hurled abuses onus. All the articles i.e. My Istridhan which was handed over to Chinder Singh at the time of marriage and same were given to Rajwinder Kaur by Chinder Singh. Both the accused in connivance with each other have misappropriated the articles. This Panchayat went about five months before."
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of her contention that no offence under sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out if the allegations as levelled are taken on its face value has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas Kosalia v. Narender Kumar Jain 1991(2) RCR(Criminal) 518 wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "11. Even if the conversation as stated above is taken to be correct, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant is a practising lawyer on taxation side at Bhiwani and the present petitioner is also a public servant, discharging his duties as an appellate authority i.e. Joint Taxation Commissioner. It is presumable that they must be meeting each other in discharge of their duties. Even if the complainant is allowed to say that the said conversation has caused alarm or threat of injury, then that imaginary injury and harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper should complaint of it. The complainant being an advocate, was expected, not to bother about what allegedly had been said to him by the petitioner on telephone. To my mind, advocate of ordinary sense and temper would never complaint of an such harm. This view of mine gets ample support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While interpreting it their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Mrs. Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan Hap Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1773 : " The next question is whether, having regard to the harm caused to the appellant and to her servant Robert was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complaint of such harm. Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation of negligible wrongs or of offences of trivial character. Whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties, the knowledge or intention which the offending act is done, and other related circumstances. There can be no absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper wold not complaint of the harm. It cannot be judged solely by the measure of physical or other injury the act causes. A soldier assaulting his colonel, a policeman assaulting his Superintendent or a pupil beating his teacher, commit offences, the heinousness of which cannot be determined merely by the actual injury suffered by the officer or the teacher, for the assault would be wholly subversive of discipline. A assault by one child on another, or even by a grown up person on another, which causes injuries may still be regarded as so slight, having regard to the way and station of life of the parties, relation between them, situation in which the parties are placed, and other circumstances in which harm is caused, that the victim ordinarily may not complain of the harm." ;