Balbir Singh vs Harpreet Kaur

J. B. Garg, J.

Balbir Singh, the husband, Pritam Singh and Pritam Kaur, the parents of the husband, Joginder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the two brothers of the husband and Manjit Kaur wife of the aforesaid brother Joginder Singh, have moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that a complaint instituted by Harpreet Kaur for offences under Sections 403, 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code together with the summoning JUDGMENT dated 1561992, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, be quashed.

It has been alleged that Balbir Singh was married to Harpreet Kaur on 7101990; that it was a simple marriage; that there was no entrustment of any articles of dowry to the petitioners No. 2 to 6; that the prayer of the complainant was that her complaint may be sent to the police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Chief Judicial Magistrate travelled far away and summoned the petitioners.

The mere fact that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not send the complaint to the police for inquiry though it was desired by the complainant, would not render the impugned JUDGMENT as void ab initio inasmuch as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statement of the complainant and also Joginder Singh the father of the complainant and together with the documentary evidence whatever it was he passed the impugned order.

The question which requires consideration here is whether the summoning of the husband, his parents, two brothers and the wife of one brother or in other words say the entire members of the family, was justified.

It appears that the wife resided with the husband and from 7.10.1990 to 781991 and a child was also born out of the wedlock on 11291. The allegations made in para No. 3 of the complaint are that one shirt and one trousers each were given to Joginder Singh and Jaswinder Singh. On such allegations it shall not be fair to launch the prosecution against the brothers of the husband, a couple of years after the marriage. Similarly, the allegations against Pritam Kaur and the wives of the two brothers are also vague. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Anokh Singh and ors. v. Paramjit Kaur, 1990(1) RCR 497, where also all members of the family of the husband were dragged to the Court. The conclusion is that the petition partly succeeds and it is ordered that the complaint is hereby quashed visavis petitioners No. 2 to 6. However, the husband and the complainantwife, shall appear in the trial Court on 1521993 for disposal of the complaint in accordance with law.