High Courts(1990) 02 P&H CK 0046

Harish Kumar vs Sunita Rani

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 February 1990 · Citation: (1990) 1 RCR(Criminal) 645

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jag Bhushan Garg, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminals Miscellaneous Nos. 6721-M, 6722 and 6723 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 380 words

Jag Bhushan Garg, J.

1.

Sunita Rani daughter of Jagdish Lal was married to Harish Kumar son of Mahar Chand, resident of Field Ganj at Ludhiana on 2121984. The wife Sunita Rani has instituted a complaint for offences under sections 406/498A and 506 IPC not only against her husband and his parents but also against five other members of the family such as brothers and sisters of the husband. After recording some oral evidence, the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana summoned as many as eight members of the family vide his order dated 471988. The aforesaid, order has been challenged by all the accused and it has been averred that Usha Rani and Sudesh Rani who have been named as accused Nos. 6 and 8 were married long ago before the marriage of the complainant and they have been residing with their own inlaws and not with the brother. It has also been averred that Ashok Kumar a brother of the husband, his wife Madhu Bala accused Nos. 4 and 5 are working in a small shop which deals in footwears. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited attention specifically to the allegations made in para 3 of the complaint that it is accused No1, i.e., the husband who has misappropriated the articles of jewellery which were meant for the complainant. On behalf of the petitioners, attention has been invited to Inderjit Singh and others, v. Smt. Sushma Rani 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 527 wherein it was observed that there was unnecessary harassment and humility of the relations of the husband.

2.

On behalf of the respondentwife, it has been stressed that not only the complainant, but even two other witnesses Raj Rani and Mansa Ram were examined by the trial court before the impugned order was passed. After perusal of the complaint and hearing, the impugned order dated 471988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana is partially set aside and the complaint stands quashed as regards petitioners Nos. 4 to 8 i.e. Ashok Kumar son of Mehar Chand, Madhu Bala wife of Ashok Kumar, Usha Rani daughter of Mehar Chand, Suman Lata daughter of Mehar Chand and Sudesh Rani wife of Som Nath. The parties shall now appear before the trial Court at Ludhiana on 131990.

JUDGMENT accordingly.