Crl. Misc. No.M-33083 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-33083 of 2008. Decided on: October 04, 2010. Joginder Singh and others .. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT None for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioners seek the quashing of criminal complaint and the summoning order dated 30.08.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. As per the allegations in the complaint filed by Kulbir Kaur, respondent No.2, she was maltreated by her husband Baljinder Singh, father-in- law, petitioner No.1, and mother-in-law petitioner No.2, sisters-in-law, petitioner Nos.3 & 4 and brother-in-law, petitioner No.5. It is alleged by her that all the accused persons demanded money as such, her father gave a sum of Rs.40,000/- on different occasions. There are vague allegations that all the accused persons connived with each . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-33083 of 2008 other except Maninder administered her some medicine to terminate her pregnancy. Statements of complainant witnesses were recorded at the preliminary stage. After going through the complaint and summoning order, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 seem to have a good defence in their favour as the allegations against them are vague. So far as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned, allegation of entrustment of dowry articles is not established as per the averments in the complaint and the allegation seems to be vague and uncertain. The present case falls within the parameters of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, . There are no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to petitioner Nos.3, 4 & 5. They being unmarried sisters-in-law and brother-in-law seem to have been unnecessarily roped in but so far as petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are concerned, prima facie, they being parents can be tried as though weak but adequate prima facie evidence is available. They may be residing separately but this can be proved by them by producing defence evidence. The petition qua petitioner Nos.3, 4 & 5, namely Maninder Kaur, Varinder Kaur and Iqbal Singh, is allowed and the summoning order against them and further proceedings are hereby quashed being an abuse of process of the Court but so far as Joginder Singh and Jangir Kaur, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, are concerned, it is ordered that their personal appearance before the trial Court will remain exempted subject to any conditions imposed by the said Court. It will be open to the trial . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-33083 of 2008 Court to record the statements of the witnesses in the absence of petitioners but in the presence of their counsel as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. Disposed of as partly allowed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 04, 2010. rka . . . 3