Munsha Singh vs Sukhdip Kaur

H.S. Bedi, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the complaint Annexure P1 and the summoning order Annexure P2. The facts of the case are as under :

Respondent Sukhdip Kaur was earlier married to one Pritam Singh the brother of the petitioners. Pritam Singh died in the year 1981. It is further the case of the complainant that after the death of Pritam Singh, she got remarried with one Joginder Singh of village Nangal, who was an employee of the Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur and three children were born out of this wedlock. It is still further the case of the complainant that at the time of her marriage with Pritam Singh various items were given as dowry but after the death of her husband, she was beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home whereas all the dowry articles were retained by petitioners. It is further stated that on 5th October, 1993, the complainant alongwith her husband Joginder Singh, her father Mohinder Singh, her brother Jugraj Singh and one Didar Singh Sarpanch went to village Jaurkian, contacted the petitioners and demanded that the dowry articles that had been given at the time of her marriage with Pritam Singh be returned as the same were her "Istridhan". It is alleged that despite the demand, the dowry articles were not returned. Aggrieved thereby, she has filed the complaint Annexure P1 for offences punishable under Sections 406/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, who was seized of the matter, came to the conclusion (after recording the preliminary evidence) that a case against the petitioners stood prima facie made out and sufficient grounds existed for summoning them and they were, accordingly, summoned vide order dated the 3rd June, 1994 Annexure P2 to the petition. Both Annexures P1 and P2 have been impugned in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Sukhdip Kaur.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Mr. S.C. Chhabra, the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has urged that as on the face of it, the allegations made in the complaint were absurd and could not be believed, the proceedings were liable to be quashed by taking recourse to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as held by the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 604. He has further urged that the mala fides that motivated the complaint would be evident from the fact that as per the complaint Sukhdip Kaur the complainant accompanied by her family members had visited the house of the petitioners in village Jaurkian on 5th October, 1993 so as to demand the return of dowry articles but as would be evident from the summoning order Annexure P2 the complaint had been filed on 23rd February, 1993 that is well before 5th October, 1993 and as such, veracity of the allegations made in the complaint were seriously in doubt. As against this, Mr. Duggal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has urged that there appeared to be some mistake in the various dates that had been mentioned and the record be summoned so as to the ascertain the correctness of the complaint.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. It is the admitted case that Pritam Singh the husband of the complainant Sukhdip Kaur died in the year 1981. I, therefore, find it somewhat difficult to accept that a woman who has been deprived of her property would remain silent for a period of 12 years, more particularly as she had got since married to Joginder Singh, an employee of Punjab Roadways. The very fact that she chose to remain silent for such a long period makes the complaint suspect and its veracity doubtful. The veracity of the complaint is again suspect from the fact that though the complaint had been filed on 23rd Feb., 1993, yet, in the complaint it has been specifically mentioned that the demand for return of dowry articles had been made eight months subsequent to that date. Mr. Duggal's assertion that the record be summoned is again without merit. In para 5 of the petition, the categorical stand of the petitioners is that the complaint was filed on 23rd February, 1993 and the demand for the return of dowry articles was allegedly made on 5th October, 1993. In reply to its para No. 5, the averment of the complainant Sukhdip Kaur is :

"Para 5 of the petition has been mentioned wrongly here. Complaint has been filed on appropriate date."

It is, therefore, apparent that though the date of the filing of the complaint has been vaguely controverted but the appropriate date mentioned in the reply is conspicuously missing. Moreover, the date of the institution of the complaint had been taken from the certified copy of the summoning order which is on the record. To my mind, therefore, there can be no mistake so far as the present case is concerned with regard to the correctness of the dates.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to succeed. Annexures P1 and P2 are, accordingly, quashed.