Balwant Singh and ors. vs Shamsher and anr.

J.B. Garg, J.

Shamsher Kaur was married to Surinder Singh on 126198.SICK WORD) at Mandi Gobindgarh. At the time of marriage her parents handed over articles of dowry which were 85 and have been described in detail in Annexure R1. It has been alleged that there were further demands which her parents could not meet and new she has been turned out and is passing her time with the parents. She has instituted a complaint under Sections 4 and 6, of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and after recording some evidence the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Amloh summoned the husband, the parents and Surjit Kaur a sister of the husband on 2591989. This order has been challenged by moving the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it has been averred that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and the ingredients of the offence were not there.

It is not disputed that Shamsher Kaur was married to Surinder Singh as alleged and she had been residing with the husband and his parents. It appears that recently Surinder Singh the husband has gone abroad and his parents are not even allowing access to the daughterinlaw in respect of the valuables or in other words the articles of dowry which she is claiming in the complaint moved and pending in the trial Court at Amloh. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Gurmej Kaur v. Balbir Kaur, 1988(2) Recent C.R. 399. However, in the aforesaid case it was found doubtful whether the motherinlaw had at all accompanied the marriage party. Here the facts and circumstances are distinguishable and plea of complainant is that most of the articles of dowry had been in possession of the husband and also his parents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Krishan Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and anr., 1990(3) Recent C.R. 183, where the husband and his parents were found residing at different places and the facts were distinguishable.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent wife has referred to Inderjit Singh and ors. v. Smt. Sushma Rani, 1988(1) Recent CR 527 and it has been stressed that the proceedings pending in the trial Court should not be disturbed especially against the husband and the parents. Here attention has also been invited to Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. Prasanna Kumar and ors., 1990(1) Recent C.R. 173 wherein it was observed that while dealing with a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint should be read as whole and unless there is material that the complaint was malafide, frivodous, vexatious, the interference of the Court was not called for. After perusal of the petition, some other documents on record and hearing, the petition is only partly accepted inasmuch as the complaint is quashed only qua Surjit Kaur a married sister of the husband and it is ordered to let the trial Court proceed against the other accused in accordance with law, The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.