Som Devi and ors. vs Veena Kumari

G.S. Chahal, J.

Smt. Soma Devi and others, who are standing trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ludhiana, have come to this Court in this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482. Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint u/s 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Annexure P2 is the complaint instituted by Smt. Veena Kumari. The averments made therein are that she was married to Virender Kumar Sharma petitioner3 on 1111982. Shri Jagdish Bhardwaj acted as ago between. Thaka ceremony was performed on 28.11.82. A few days before the marriage, all the accused persons made a demand for giving a number of articles, enumerated in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The terms put forth by the accused were agreed to under compulsion and to avoid humiliation, as the marriage had already been fixed. The articles enlisted in Annexure A and a sum of Rs. 8,000/ were given at the time of marriage. The accused brought the articles mentioned in Annexure B and delivered the same to the complainant, but since she was in bridal dress and could not open the same the same were also entrusted to the accused. After marriage, the complainant found that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles given and they exhibited their dissatisfaction. The articles which were given at the time of marriage, were retained by them and converted to their own use. Her husband did not treat her properly. The accused started making demands for other articles, as had been agreed to. As this demands was not met, she was turned out of the house. Efforts of her father to arrange her rehabilitation at the house of her husband failed. On 1.2.84 Shri Onkar Sharma, brother of her husband, took the complainant to Ludhiana, and left her at the bus stand. Before leaving her matrimonial house, she had made a demand for the articles of dowry and Stridhan, but the same was refused, Since, 1.2.84 she has been living with her parents. She had then brought a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which proceeding were still pending. On 29.9.88 both the said cases were fixed in the Courts when her husband made an offer to take her back. She readily agreed to the same. From the Court, she accompanied him, but he left her at Jalandhar, telling her that she should agree to divorce. When she reiterated her demand for dowry articles, the same was also declined. To put pressure on her, her father was got arrested from Police Station, Mahalpur, but his release was secured with great difficulty.

Annexure P1 is the order of the SDM, Ludhiana dated 15.6.85, granting permission to her to proceedings u/s 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., AIR 1985 SC 628 : 1985 CC Cases (SC) 25 it was held that Stridhan is the executive property of the wife and its entrustment to her in laws amounts to creation of a trust and they are found to return the same when demand is made by a married woman. Criminal proceedings for its misappropriation against husband or her in laws is maintainable. In the present case, the complainant had given complete facts about entrustment of the dowry articles by her parents at the time of marriage. She has also narrated her woeful story of being harassed and the articles having been retained and misappropriated by the accused petitioners. The complaint cannot be quashed at the initial stage unless the same does not contain the necessary ingredients of an offence or the same is shown to have been brought with an oblique motive or with a mala fide intention. The complainant has described that pending the proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and u/s 125 Cr.PC she had returned in the company of her husband to settle in her matrimonial home, but, again, she was not kept by him who, probably did not genuinely went her company. These facts are not shown to be false.

No facts have been brought forth that the impugned complaint is mala fide.

The learned counsel has mainly relied on the fact that no list of witnesses was appended with the complaint before the Magistrate about the issuing of summons and as such, the summoning order was bad in law. I am, however, of the view that, no doubt, section 204, Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate to insist on filing of the list of witnesses before summons or warrants are issued but his failure to do so will not render the summoning order illegal. At the most, it is an irregularity and not an illegality. The summoning order was passed on the appreciation of evidence and failure to get the list of witnesses will not affect its legality.

The other grounds taken by the petitioners to challenge the continuation of the prosecution, are facts which have to be established on the appreciation of evidence (sic) by the parties. No ground for quashing of the impugned complaint is made out.

A direction is, however, issued that the impugned proceedings shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within six months Smt. Soma Devi shall be exempted from personal appearance may be required for some specific purpose. With the foregoing direction and order, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

Misc disposed of.