Crl. Misc. No.M-25283 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-25283 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.08.2010 Harjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint No.134 dated 16.10.2008 filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara and Order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, wherein, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 120-B IPC and other proceedings pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara arising out of P-10. The complainant-Rajwinder Kaur filed complaint against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law i.e. the present petitioners, Amrik Singh, brother-in-law and Jasbir Kaur, sister-in-law. As per the allegations in the complaint, the dowry articles were entrusted to these persons. The marriage of the complainant and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 18.01.1998. After marriage, the complainant and petitioner No.1 lived together as husband and wife. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock. After 20 days from the date of the marriage, the petitioners Crl. Misc. No.M-25283 of 2010 2 started taunting, misbehaving, maltreating and beating the complainant for bringing less dowry in her marriage. The petitioners were not happy with the dowry articles which were brought by the complainant in her marriage. The petitioners started saying that the complainant has not brought sufficient dowry in her marriage and the dowry brought by her is very less and that also of not good quality and the reputation of the petitioners has been lowered in the eyes of their friends and relatives. The petitioners started demanding Maruti Car and share in the property of the father of the complainant from her just after her marriage. It was further alleged that she was given beatings and was turned out of her matrimonial home. The Panchyat intervened, however, there was no effect on the accused and they continued to beat and taunt her and she had been bearing in-human treatment at the hands of the accused. Accordingly, the preliminary evidence was recorded. The complainant examined Mahinder Singh as CW1 and Charan Kaur as CW3. The statement of the complainant was corroborated by these two witnesses. Accordingly, the present petitioners were summoned, whereas, the complaint against Amrik Singh, brother-in- law and Jasbir Kaur, sister-in-law was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. While praying for quashing of the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that earlier the respondent No.2 had approached the police and filed complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phagwara against the petitioners, as well as, against Amrik Singh and Jasbir Kaur. The petitioners appeared before the police at Phagwara and gave complete assistance. The petitioners made statements before the Investigating Officer. Even Amrik Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant appeared and made statement. The said statement was registered at Sr. No.601/LPC dated 09.07.2008. The Enquiry Officer arrived at the firm conclusion that there is no prima facie evidence that respondent No.2 has Crl. Misc. No.M-25283 of 2010 3 been tortured for dowry. Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 19.09.2008 which has been accepted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phagwara on 26.09.2008. There is no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, in as much as, it is specifically mentioned in para 7 of the complaint as under :- “7. That the complainant also approached the police of police station Sadar, Phagwara and moved an application to the DSP Phagwara on 26.08.2008 requested them to take necessary action against the accused party. The dispute of the parties was also referred to the Mahila Mandal of Police of Phagwara by the DSP, Phagwara but they refused to take any action against the accused, hence, the present complaint.” Thus, admittedly, the police did not register the FIR. Accordingly, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint, whereas, the summoning order was passed after recording of the preliminary evidence. The statement of the complainant has been corroborated by CW-1 Mahinder Singh and CW-3 Charan Kaur. Specific allegations are levelled against the husband. Accordingly, the petitioners, who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, have been summoned, whereas, the complaint against brother-in-law and sister- in-law being vague was dismissed. Thus, it would not be proper to quash a legitimate prosecution. A prima facie case has been found against the present petitioners. No other argument was raised. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.08.2010 JUDGE gurpreet