Romesh Rani vs Surinder Kumar

G.S. Chahal, J.

Shrimati Romesh Rani, who is the complainant in the complaint pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar has come up to this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous, for modification of the summoning order passed by him.

The allegations made against the respondents may be gathered from the statement made by Smt. Romesh before the Magistrate, as under :

"My marriage took place in the year 24.6.76 in village Mehtot as per Hindu rites. My parents gave me some articles in the marriage are, one gold chain weighing about 2 tolas, two wrist watches, one sofa set, table fan, one ceiling fan, one petti, one sewing machine, two beds, 40 utensils, 20 suits of complainant, Rs. 4000/ cash and one golden ring to Surinder Kumar. All these articles were taken by the accused at village Qilla Raipur. After marriage accused also took me to their village. All the accused are living jointly and all articles are in their possession. Accused No. 1 used to beat me at the instance of his parents. Due to fear i used to bear all this. On 13.2.1989, I gave birth to a son, whose name is "Varun". Accused No. 1 used to beat me. Lastly on 3.4.86 after giving me severe beatings turned out from the house. My brother Avtar Krishan went to their village and took Panchayat and requested them that she should be rehabilitated. But they refused and then we demanded out dowry articles which they refused and then we demanded our dowry aricles which they refused to return. All the accused are greedy and all the accused are in custody of all dowry articles which is Istri Dhan.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondents under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners claims that a prima facie case was also made out for offences under sec. 498A of the IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In Criminal Miscellenous No. 6058M of 1989, the order of the Magistrate, summoning respondents 2 to 6 has been quashed. Thus, the complaint survives only against Surinder Kumar. It is not disputed at the Bar that at the time of framing of the charges, the Court can find out what offences are made out against the accused person and if on the basis of the evidence brought forth, offences other then offence under Sec. 406, IPC are made out, he can be charged for the same. In view of this legal proposition, no case is made out for interference with the summoning order. The criminal miscellaneous is hereby dismissed.