Dhan Devi vs Deepak

Jai Singh, Sekhon, J.

Mst. Dhan Devi, petitioner, is the motherinlaw of Mst. Deepak complainantrespondent. The complainant was married with Ramesh Kumar Soni son of the petitioner, on 26th June, 1982 at Delhi according to Hindu religious rites. It is alleged that at the time of her marriage, her relations gave valuable gifts as mentioned in the list attached with the complaint, but soon after their marriage, her husband and other relations of the latter, including his mother started maltreating her with the intention of turning out her from the house and misappropriated her Istri Dhan. It is further alleged that her husband was doing nothing and she was blessed with a daughter named Cherri. Her husband took her to various places like Delhi and village Bhadohi (Varanasi) and used to return to the home late. Later on she learnt that her husband had married one Smt. Parvesh and when she remonstrated with him for having married second time, he turned violent and started beating her. Thereafter, he brought his second wife to the house and asked her to look after Mst. Parvesh as the latter was expecting child. It is also maintained that her clothes and ornaments and other gifts were being used by the second wife. With the above referred allegations, a complaint under sections 405, 406, 494, 498A and 506 IPC was filed by the complainant against the present petitioner and four others, including her husband.

Shri H.P. Handa, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, summoned the petitioner and her son, i.e. the husband of the complainant, to face trial for offences under sections 405, 406, 498A and 506, Indian Penal Code only. Feeling aggrieved, she has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint, besides the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for summoning the petitioner for the above referred offences.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record. The law is well settled on the point that for summoning the accused on a complaint, the Court has to see the allegations contained in the complaint for concluding whether any prima facie congnizable offence is made out against the accused. In other words, it can be well said that at the stage of summoning the accused in a complaint, the Court has not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations contained in the complaint. In the present case, the allegations of entrustment of the Istri Dhan or maltreatment against Dhan Devi, motherinlaw of the complainant are vague as it is alleged in the complaint that the articles mentioned in the list were entrusted to all the accused. Similarly, the complainant had levelled vague allegations about all the accused having maltreated and harassed her. Admittedly, according to the complaint, the major part of the maltreatment to the complainant at the hands of her husband took place at Varanasi, whereas the motherinlaw of the complainant resides at Patiala. The persual of Annexure P1 reveals that the marriage between the parties was dissolved through a decree of divorce per se by the learned District Judge, Patiala, on the ground of mental and physical cruelty as the husband had contracted second marriage. I.S. Tiwana, J., of this Court in Bal Kishan and others v. Poonam Verma, 1987(1) Recent C.R. 657 had quashed the proceedings under section 405 and 406, Criminal Procedure Code by holding that the allegations regarding entrustment of property against the accused other than the husband were too vague.

Under these circumstances, the complaint Annexure P2, as well as the summoning order Annexure P3 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner are quashed by accepting this petition.

JUDGMENT accordingly.