IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-435 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.11.2011. Bishwajit Singh & others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated October 6th, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur affirming the order dated January 27th, 2009 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya (Annexure P-7 and P-6 respectively) whereby application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal for summoning the petitioners was allowed in case bearing First Information Report No.25 dated June 8th, 2007 under Sections 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Talwara Township, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Anjana Chauhan was married with Anand Chauhan on February 8th, 2003. A matrimonial dispute arose . She lodged the aforesaid FIR against seven persons including the petitioners. During investigation, six persons were found innocent. Charge-sheet/challan was filed only against the husband. Anjana Chauhan appeared before the trial Magistrate and deposed that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by her parents to her husband and the petitioners. The petitioners and her mother-in-law did not allow her to use dowry articles, that is, refrigerator, T.V, washing machine, utensils etc. The petitioner No.1 and 3 are brothers of husband of the complainant and petitioner No.2 is wife of petitioner No.1. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing at village Criminal Misc. No. M-435 of 2010 (2) Mehra, Tehsil Khakhad, District Kangra. The petitioner No.3 is residing at Baddi (Himachal Pradesh) whereas complainant after marriage was residing at village Garli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. 3. In Kans Ram vs. state of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), the Hon'bl'e Supreme Court observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. 4. It is normally seen that question of demand of dowry relates to the husband and wife. The petitioners, who were not residing with the complainant had nothing to do with dowry. They are not going to get anything if at all dowry is given by the wife to her husband. The complainant's words cannot be accepted as final against the petitioners as they are least concerned with the matrimonial life of the couple. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the matter was compromised between the complainant and her husband as is evident from the copy of the judgment dated March 26th, 2011 (Annexure P-8) and the statement of Anjana Chauhan (Annexure P-9) recorded before the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Mukarian. By judgment dated March 26th, 2011 a decree of divorce under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was granted in favour of the parties. During the pendency of that petition, statement of Anjana Chauhan (Annexure P-9) was also recorded whereby she stated that all disputes including the present one has been compromised. 6. In view of above, petition is accepted. Orders under challenge are set-aside. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 30.11.2011. SN